Stotn  i^t  feifitari?  of 
fesBor  TTiffidtn  Oliffer  (J)a;rfon,  ©.©.,  &S 

to  t^e  feifitatt?  of 
(princefon  ^^eofogicaf  ^eminctrg 


/(oy/^* 


k 


\ 


^ 


/ 


A 


^ 


r 


ii 


J 


h:\ 


! 

BISHOP  HUGHES  CONFUTED. 


REPLY 


TO   THE 


RT.  REV.  JOHN  HUGHES, 


ROiLAJs'  CATflOLIC  BISHOP  OF  NEW-YORL 


BY 

K  I  R  W  A  N 


NEW-YORK: 

LEAVITT,  TROW  &  CO.,  191  BROADWAY. 

1848. 


Bntored  according  to  Act  af  Congress,  in  the  year  1848, 

By  S.  I.  PRIME, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  tli«  United  States  for  the 
Southern  District  of  New -York. 


CONTENTS. 


TAOB 
iMTRODXJCTORT   NOTB,  ...» 5 

LETTER  I. 
Introdaction — Free  discussion    important — Bp.   Hughes   oommencing 
answering  before  reading  Kirv/an — Excuse  for  the  charge  of  iosin- 
cerity — Other  accounts  settled — Controversy  on   Romanism  among 
the  people — Object  of  these  letters 7 

LETTER  II. 
Bishop  Hughes'   letters  characterized — Coolness  of  their  statements — 
Their  argument  one  enforcing  despotism — The  principle  that  the  Bi- 
ble has  no  authority  but  what  the  church  gives  it,  and  that  it  mast 
be  undersood  as  the  church  interprCiS  it,  examined  .  17 

LETTER  III. 

Examination  of  Church  interpretation  continued 27 

LETTER  IV. 
Examination  of  Church  interpretation  continued — Its  destructive  con- 
sequences— It  is  a  monstrous  assumption 36 

LETTER  V. 

The  Papal  Church  tlieory — A  mistake  in  selecting  Peter  for  the  tiara 
— The  prayer  of  Christ  for  Peter  realized,  for  him  and  all  his  suc- 
cessors— The  question,  Was  Peter  pope?  examined    ...        .44 

LETTER  VI. 
Was  Peter  pope  ?    examination  jontiuued — Bet  two  argnments  that 
cannot  be  answered — TiUotsun's  opinion 53 


4  CONTENTS. 

LETTER  VII. 
Papal  claim  to  infallibility  examined,  and  refuted  i        ...    62 

LETTER  VIIL 
The  assertion  that  there  are  but  two  principles,  authority  and  reason,  for 
the  determining  of  the  meaning  of  Scripture,  examined  and  eonfnted    71 

LETTER  IX. 
The  Bishop's  six  letters  to  Kirwan  reviewed  .....    82 

LETTER  X. 
An  appeal  to  all  Roman  Catholics         .......    05 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. 


When  1  ended  my  First  Series  of  letters  to 
Bishop  Hughes,  I  hoped  and  thought  that  my  part  in 
the  Romish  controversy  was  also  ended.  Appeals, 
however,  were  made  to  me  that  I  could  not  resist, 
for  a  new  series,  in  the  manner  and  spirit  of  the 
first.  I  yielded ;  and  hence  the  Second  Series. 
Pledging  myself  not  to  reply  to  any  attacks  made 
upon  my  letters,  save  by  him  to  whom  they  were 
addressed,  and  feeling,  for  reasons  stated,  that  he 
would  not  reply,  I  again  supposed  my  work  ended. 
But  contrary  to  my  expectations,  the  bishop  twice 
attempted  a  reply,  and  with  what  spirit  and  success 
I  need  not  inform  the  public.  His  first  letters  are 
as  feeble  as  could  be  desired  ;  his  second  are  in  the 
very  worst  spirit  even  of  Popery,  whose  very  best 
spirit  has  but  little  to  recommend  it.  The  feeble- 
ness of  the  first  letters  to  Dear  Reader,  and  the  low 
personalities,  not  to  say  vulgarities  of  those  addressed 
to  Kirwan,  reveal  the  true  character  of  the  author. 
They  might  be  published  by  Protestants  in  a  sepa- 
rate volume,  which  might  be  truly  entitled,  "  Bishop 
Hughes  Unmasked."  Those  letters  are  reviewed 
in  the  following  pages. 


b  INTRODUCTORY    NOTE. 

My  objections  to  the  system  of*  Popery  are  statea 
in  my  first  and  second  series.  They  have  not  been 
answered;  nor  will  they  soon  be.  The  bishop's  rea- 
sons for  adherence  to  the  Catholic  Church  are  re- 
viewed and  confuted  in  the  present  series.  The 
present  series  pulls  up  the  Upas  tree  by  the  roots ; 
the  former  series  lopped  off  its  baleful  branches; 
together  they  lay  down  the  rootless,  branchless 
trunk  upon  the  earth  to  rot. 

The  arguments  of  these  letters  are  not,  of  course, 
new.  All  that  I  have  attempted  to  do  is  to  strip  the 
controversy  of  its  learned  heaviness  ;  by  recasting 
and  simplifying,  to  bring  it  down  to  the  comprehen- 
sion of  the  common  mind,  and  thus  to  prepare  a 
Manual  on  the  subject  adapted  to  universal  circula- 
tion. Such  a  manual,  unless  I  mistake,  was  greatly 
needed  by  Papists  and  Protestants. 

I  commit  these  letters  to  the  kind  eare  of  God. 
May  His  Spirit  accompany  their  circulation,  and 
render  them  instrumental  '•'  in  lifting  up  from  the 
v«)rld  one  of  its  heaviest  curses." 

KiRWAN. 

New-York^  September,  1848. 


KIR  WAN'S  REPLY 

TO    THE 

RIGHT    REV.    JOHN    HUGHES, 

BISHOP  OF  NEW- YORK. 


LETTER  I. 

Introdaction — Free  discussion  important — Bp.  Hughes  commencing  answer- 
ing before  reading  Kirwan — Excuse  for  the  charge  of  insincerity — Other 
aocountf  settled — Controversy  on  Ronuanism  among  the  people — Object 
of  these  letters. 

My  DEAR  Sir, — Contrary  to  all  my  expectations, 
and  in  the  face  of  the  excuses  which  I  made  for 
your  silence,  you  have  resolved,  at  length,  to  notice 
the  "  Letters  "  which  I  have  addressed  to  you.  The 
fact  gives  me  unfeigned  pleasure.  It  is  hailed  by 
all  those  interested  in  the  development  of  truth,  and 
in  the  exposure  of  error  and  imposture,  as  an  omen 
of  good.  Had  you  been  silent  on  the  subject  of  those 
letters  so  would  I  have  been.  They  were  assailed 
by  some  of  your  papers  and  priests  throughout  the 
country,  in  a  manner  at  once  low  and  rude  ',  but  I 
made  no  reply.  I  was  pledged  to  suffer  the  assaults  of 
such  assailants  to  pass  unnoticed.     You,  sir,  well 


8  kiuwan's  reply 

know  that  by  multitudes  who  wear  the  garments  of 
religion,  there  are  no  manifestations  of  its  grace, — 
that  many,  in  religious  controversy,  esteem  vulgar 
weapons  the  most  effectual ;  and  that  many  treat  an 
opponent  whose  arguments  they  cannot  refute,  as 
did  the  Jews  the  Saviour  in  the  palace  of  the  High 
Priest,  who  "  spit  in  his  face,  and  buffeted  him,  and 
smote  him  with  the  palms  of  their  hands."  In  argu- 
ments like  these,  your  priests,  especially  those  im- 
ported from  Ireland,  are  well  versed.  Nor  would  it 
be  any  serious  disadvantage  to  the  cause  of  Protest- 
antism if  such  arguments  were  confined  to  them. 
Separating  yourself  from  the  priests  over  whom  you 
flourish  your  crook  as  chief  shepherd,  I  stated  in  one 
of  my  letters  that  should  you  reply,  you  "  would 
reply  as  a  scholar  and  a  gentleman."  In  the  same 
letter  I  also  stated  to  you,  that  if  you  could  secure 
time  enough  from  your  varied  occupations  to  reply 
to  some  of  my  objections  which  forbid  my  return  to 
your  church,  "  there  was  one  at  least  that  would 
read  your  reply  with  great  pleasure."  And  whilst 
disappointed  at  the  want  of  scholar-like  and  gentle- 
manly bearing  of  your  letters,  I  have  yet  hailed  them 
and  read  them  with  pleasure. 

The  history  of  the  world,  and  of  the  progress  of 
truth,  clearly  prove  the  exceeding  importance  of  free 
discussion.  From  such  discussion,  conducted  in  a 
right  spirit,  nothing  can  suffer  but  error  and  impos- 
ture. This  Protestantism  courts,  and  Popery  con- 
demns where  the  power-is  in  her  hands.     If  you  and 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  9 

I,  sir,  lived  in  Austria,  Spain,  Sicily,  or  in  the 
States  of  the  Church,  your  reply  to  my  letters  might 
come,  not  in  the  Freeman's  Journal,  but  in  the  way 
of  a  warrant  through  the  civil  magistrate  for  my 
imprisonment  or  banishment  as  a  heretic.  But  here 
we  can  have  free  discussion  to  the  full ;  and  how- 
ever you  or  your  people  may  feel  on  the  subject,  I 
am  persuaded  that  Protestants  are  resolved  to  use 
their  privilege.  And  could  your  people  think,  and 
read,  and  believe,  and  act  for  themselves,  without 
any  of  the  terrors  or  trammels  which  your  system 
casts  around  them,  I  feel  persuaded  that  two  gener- 
ations would  reduce  the  spiritual  power  of  the  pope 
your  master  to  a  yet  lower  point  than  that  to  which 
his  temporal  power  has  fallen.  Hence  I  hail  your 
letters  as  an  advance  toward  free  discussion,  which 
has  ever  been  the  desire  of  Protestants,  because  of 
its  tendency  to  the  development  of  truth. 

Permit  me,  in  the  briefest  manner,  and  before  I 
proceed  to  other  statements,  to  allude  to  a  few  things 
in  your  introductory  letter.  Some  of  them  to  me, 
and  to  many  of  your  readers,  appear  singular 
enough. 

You  begin  by  saying  that  you  have  '•  seen  a 
certain  work  announced  and  much  lauded  in  the 
papers,  entitled  "  Kirwan's  Letters  to  Bishop  Hughes. 
i  have  not  read  these  letters,  though  I  have  twice 
attempted  to  do  so."  And  yet  in  the  subsequent 
paragraphs  of  this  letter  you  seem  to  know  that 
Kirwan  has  treated  you  with  personal  respect — that 


10  KIR  WAN's    REPLY 

he  imputes  to  you  a  want  of  sincerity  in  the  pro- 
fession of  the  Catholic  faith — that  his  letters  have 
attracted  attention  "  by  a  sprightliness  of  style  in 
assailing  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church,  which 
renders  them  a  pleasing  contrast  to  the  filthy  vo- 
lumes that  have  been  written  on  the  same  side,  and 
on  the  same  subject," — you  seem  to  know  "  the 
great  topics  which  Kirwan  has  discussed,"  and  that 
"  he  has  published  reasons  for  having  left  the  Catho- 
lic Church  and  for  refusing  to  return."  And  for 
these  letters,  which  you  so  well  understand  without 
having  ever  read  them,  you  resolve  to  put  forth  an 
antidote  !  Now,  sir,  you  either  read  Kirwan's  Let- 
ters, or  you  did  not  read  them ;  if  you  read  them 
why  deny  it  ?  if  you  did  not  read  them,  how  came 
you  by  such  an  accurate  knowledge  of  their  con- 
tents, and  of  their  spirit  ?  And  has  the  world  ever 
heard  or  read  of  a  man  seriously  undertaking  to 
reply  to  a  book  which  he  has  not  read  ?  For  your 
own  sake,  sir,  I  wish  all  your  assumed  carelessness 
here  had  more  of  an  air  of  truthfulness  ;  for  there 
is  not  a  man  in  or  out  of  your  church  who  reads 
your  letter  who  will  not  say  that  you  either  read 
Kirwan's  Letters,  or  that  you  had  them  read  to  you. 
And  there  was  no  need  of  exposing  yourself  to  such 
an  imputation  for  the  unworthy  purpose  of  express- 
ing your  contempt.  I  disclaim  every  thing  person- 
ally offensive  to  yourself  when  I  say  that,  as  to 
truthfulness,  papal  priests  have  but  little  capital  on 
which  to  trade,  and  that  they  should  be  very  spar- 


TO    BISHOP    HUfJHES.  11 

ing  of  what  they  have.     They  are  already  trem- 
bling on  the  verge  of  bankruptcy. 

You  also  complain  that  I  do  you  great  injustice 
by  imputing  to  you  a  want  of  sincerity  in  your  pro- 
fession of  belief  in  the  Catholic  faith.  I  felt  when 
I  made  it,  and  now  feel,  that  the  imputation  is  a 
serious  one.  And  yet  I  knew  not  how  to  withhold  it  ; 
nor  do  I  know  now  how  to  withdraw  it.  I  can  make 
vast  allowances  for  ignorance  ;  but  you  are  not  an 
ignorant  man.  So  I  can  make  great  allowance  for 
the  prejudices  of  early  training,  and  for  the  in- 
fluences of  a  narrow  and  bigoted  education  when 
so  conducted  as  to  fill  the  mind,  not  with  knowledge, 
but  with  error  and  superstition.  But  thus,  unless 
I  am  misinformed,  you  have  not  been  trained  or 
educated.  I  can  also  make  allowance  for  well  edu- 
cated and  well  disciplined  minds  that  have  always 
been  excluded  from  contact  with  minds  holding  op- 
posite sentiments  ;  and  that  are  unaccustomed  to 
hear  questioned  the  truth  of  their  opinions ;  but  this 
is  not  your  case.  You  are  no  stranger  to  polite 
society — to  the  company  of  educated  men.  You 
well  know  that  the  doctrines  peculiar  to  your  church 
are  rejected  as  not  only  unscriptural,  but  as  unrea- 
sonable, and  as  absurd,  by  the  great  mass  of- the 
educated  mind  of  our  world.  And  how  to  account 
for  your  professed  belief  in  them  I  knew  not,  and 
now  know  not.  The  thing  came  up  before  my 
mind  in  this  wise  :  Does  Bishop  Hughes  believe 
that  a  mass  mumbled  over,  for  half  a  dollar,  will 


12  kirwan's  reply 

avail  in  getting  a  soul  out  of  purgatory  ?  does  he 
believe  that  a  little  wafer  made  of  flour  is  converted 
into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  by  his  conse- 
cration t)f  it  ?  Does  he  believe  that  he  can  send  a 
man  to  heaven  by  rubbing  him  with  a  little  olive  oil 
when  dying  ?  If  he  believes  in  these  things  he  is  a 
dunce  ;  but  he  is  not  a  dunce  ;  therefore  he  does 
not  believe  them.  This,  sir,  I  frankly  tell  you,  was 
the  train  of  thought  which  led  me  to  the  conclusion 
of  which  you  complain  as  an  injurious  imputation. 
There  was  no  alternative  for  me  but  to  question 
your  sense  or  your  sincerity  ;  and  I  preferred  the 
latter  as  on  the  whole  the  most  pleasing  to  yourself. 
I  do  not  know  that  there  is  a  living  man  who  would 
not  prefer  to  be  called  a  knave  rather  than  a  fool. 
The  first  simply  implies  a  sinful  misdirection  of  his 
sense,  and  may  be  the  imputation  of  selfishness  or 
malice  ;  the  other  is  a  denial  that  he  has  any  sense. 
So  that  the  imputation,  instead  of  "  betraying  the 
evil  effects  of  my  Presbyterian  training,"  exhibits 
rather  "  the  generous  instincts  of  my  Irish  nature  " 
in  making  for  you  the  best  apology  that  the  case 
would  admit. 

I  think,  sir,  your  friends  will  regret  the  whole 
tone  of  your  introductory  letter,  considering  the 
courtesy  which  I  observed  towards  you.  It  exhi- 
bits a  spirit  unworthy  of  a  bishop.  You  could  con- 
tinue in  silence  without  any  one  having  a  right  to 
impugn  your  motives  ;  but  when  you  came  forward 
to  reply  you  should  have  exhibited  less  irritation. 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  13 

I  am  sorry  that  my  letters  vexed  if  they  failed  ta 
convert  you.  Your  conjecture  and  mistake,  as  to 
my  name,  might  have  been  omitted.  Your  regrets 
over  my  Irish  birth  are  ludicrous;  your  saying 
that  you  would  rather  I  had  been  any  body  else's 
countryman  than  yours  is  probably  among  the 
truest  things  you  have  said.  You  know  not  why 
I  directed  my  letters  to  you ;  this  is  owing  to  the 
fact  that  you  commenced  answering  before  reading 
them.  You  assert,  as  far  as  you  know,  that  the 
public  never  asked  for  my  reasons  for  leaving  your 
church.  Had  I  recently  gone  to  confession  to  you, 
you  might  think  differently.  You  say  it  is  a  matter 
of  the  least  importance  to  Catholics  whether  I  re- 
turn  or  not.  It  is  very  likely  that  the  sun  would 
rise  and  set  without  either  of  us ;  it  certainly  did 
so  before  we  were  born,  and  may  continue  to  do 
so  after  we  are  dead.  It  is  not  wise,  even  for  a 
bishop,  to  indulge  the  conceit  that  the  sun'  rises  in 
his  mouth  and  sets  at  his  feet.  But  all  this,  sir,  is 
aside  from  the  great  object  of  my  letters ;  it  is  the 
argumentum  ad  invidiam,  and  is  unworthy  of  you 
and  of  me.  If  my  object  in  my  letters  to  you — or 
your  object  in  the  letters  of  which  you  make  mine 
the  occasion — >:>r  the  object  of  these  letters  in  reply 
to  yours,  is  obtained,  we  must  omit  personalities, 
and  seek  solely  and  only  the  truth.  The  truth 
only  is  worthy  the  pursuit  of  high-minded  and 
Christian  men. 

You   say,  and   truly,   that   the   public   mind   is. 
2 


14  kirwan's  heply 

awake  to  the  relative  positions  of  the  Catholic  and 
Protestant  churches.    This  is  emphatically  so.    Con- 
troversies   which   hitherto   have   been   confined   to 
universities  and  ecclesiastics  are  now  down  amone 
the  people.     Even  the  Italian  mind,  which  the  evil 
influences  of  your  church  have  almost  extinguished, 
is  questioning  the  truth  of  your  dogmas  and  forms, 
and   is   breathing   after   emancipation  from   them. 
Catholic  Germany  is  in  agitation,  and  the  aid  ol 
princes  is  invoked  to  prevent  the  people  from  be- 
coming Protestant.     The  entire  Catholic  world   is 
in  commotion,  seeking   to   break   the   fetters  with 
which  your  popes  and   priests   have  bound  it  for 
ages.     In  this  land  of  our  adoption  all  minds  are 
using  the   privilege  of  thinking  freely  secured  to 
them ;    and   where    there   is   one   Protestant    that 
passes  over  to  your  church,  there  are  fifty  Papists 
who  become   Protestants.     Your   people   begin   to 
feel    that    they   have    permitted   their   mercenary 
priests  to  think  for  them  long  enough  ;  they  now 
commence   thinking   for    themselves.     And   I    am 
pleased  to  inform  you  that  even  Kirwan's  Letters 
have  been  eagerly  sought  for  by  many  of  them, 
and  have  been  blessed  to  the  hopeful  conversion  of 
not  a  few.     You  say  the  Catholic  religion  is  now 
looked  upon   with   less  disfavor  than  formerly.     I 
am  persuaded,  sir,  that  you  mistake  upon  this  sub- 
ject.    Controversy  has  assumed  a  kinder  tone,  and 
efforts  are  put  forth  in  a  more  quiet  and  Christian 
way  than  formerly  ',  but  the  mind  of  the  world  and 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  15 

its  piety  were  never  more  intently  engaged  for  the 
overthrow  of  Popery,  than  at  the  present  hour. 
You,  sir,  are  regarded  as  at  the  head  of  a  political 
party — you  are  regarded  as  carrying  the  vote  of 
the  papal  Irish  in  your  pocket.  Papists,  even  here^ 
are  regarded  as  so  wedded  to  the  pope,  as  to  be 
willing  to  cast  their  vote  for  the  pcirty  that  praises 
him  loudest.  These,  sir,  are  the  reasons  why  you 
misread  the  attentions  which  are  paid  yourself,  ancj 
the  eulogies  which  are  pronounced  on  the  pope^ 
Some  of  the  very  men  that  flatter  you  in  public, 
and  that  applaud  the  pope  in  the  Tabernacle,  con- 
temn you  in  their  hearts,  and  pray  at  their  family 
altars  that  popish  superstition  may  come  to  a  per- 
petual end.     And  you  well  know  it  all. 

Yet,  sir,  there  is  an  excitement  on  the  public 
mind  which  will  secure  a  reading  for  what  you  or 
I  may  say,  kindly  and  intelligently,  as  to  Popery  or 
Protestantism.  I  have  stated  my  objections  to  your 
church.  It  is  a  matter  of  public  regret  that  you 
have  not  resolved  to  meet  and  obviate  them.  You 
have  marked  out,  however,  your  own  course ;  you 
have  attempted  to  show  the  reasons  why  no  Catho- 
lic should  forsake  his  church,  and  why  all  Pro- 
testants should  seek  her  communion  as  soon  as 
possible.  It  will  be  my  pleasure  to  follow  you  step 
by  step,  and  to  show  the  utter  truthlessness  of  every 
argument  you  have  adduced  to  show  that  yours  is 
the  one,  holy,  catholic  and  apostolical  church,  out 
of  whose  communion  there  is  no  salvation.     This 


16'  kirwan's  refly 

BO  man  has  ever  yet  succeeded  in  doing.  Can  you 
hope  to  be  successful  where  others,  more  learned, 
more  acute,  and  less  burdened  with  duties,  have 
failed  ? 

My  objections  to  your  church  are  before  the 
world.  They  stand  there,  abused,  but  unanswered. 
This  is  one  point  gained.  It  will  be  gaining  an- 
other if  1  can  show  the  baselessness  of  every  argu- 
ment you  use  to  bind  your  people  to  it,  and  to 
induce  others  to  enter  it.  To  do  this  will  be  my 
object  in  the  following  letters. 

Yours, 

KiRWAN. 


TO    BISHCP    HUGHES.  IT 


LETTER  IL 

Bishop  Hughes'  letters  characterized — Coolness  of  their  statements — Theif 
argument  one  enforcing  despotism — The  principle  that  the  Bible  ha&  no 
authority  but  what  the  church  gives  it,  and  tliat  it  must  be  andei30od  as 
the  church  interprets  it,  examined. 

My  dear  Sir, — I  now  proceed  to  the  examina- 
tion of  the  letters  which  you  have  addressed  to  a 
"  Dear  Reader,"  and  of  which  mine  to  you  have 
been  the  occasion.  I  have  taken  the  stand  point 
outside  your  church  which  you  requested  your 
"Reader"  to  take,  and  there  I  have  considered 
and  inwardly  digested  them.  My  views  in  refer- 
ence to  them  I  will  now  frankly  and  candidly  give 
to  you  and  to  the  public.  And  if  a  word  or  senti- 
ment shall  escape  me,  not  essential  to  my  main 
object,  that  will  give  you  pain,  I  beg  you  to  charge 
it  to  the  account  of  that  frailty  of  our  common, 
natures  from  which  alas  !  neither  Peter  nor  his  suc- 
cessors were,  or  are  exempt. 

These  letters  give  the  old  statement  about  the 
papal  being  the  only  true  church,  and  in  the  old 
way ;  a  statement  which  has  been  better  made 
very  many  times.  There  is  an  utter  absence  from 
it  of  freshness  ;  it  is  a  mere  distillation  from  other 


18  .  kirwan's  reply 

minds  wonderfully  weakened  in  the  process.  Out 
of  the  old  beaten  track  of  Christ  appointing  apostles 
and  making  Peter  their  pope — of  giving  to  them, 
and  especially  to  him,  the  keys  of  the  kingdom, 
you  seem  unable  to  take  a  step.  And  you  present 
the  argument,  if  it  can  be  so  called,  in  the  weakest 
and  dullest  form  that  I  have  yet  seen  it.  How  to 
account  for  this — whether  on  the  ground  of  an 
over-estimate  of  your  talents,  or  that  you  are  rea- 
soning against  your  own  interior  convictions — I 
know  not.  Although  comparatively  unknown,  and 
with  but  little  general  reputation  at  stake,  I  would 
not  be  the  author  of  them  for  your  crook,  keys, 
and  mitre. 

A  remarkable  feature  of  these  letters  is  the  cool- 
ness and  confidence  with  which  their  statements 
are  made.  These  statements  have  been  logically 
and  theologically  refuted  very  many  times ;  and 
yet  you  reproduce  them  with  as  much  composure  as 
if  they  were  the  utterance  of  the  divine  Spirit ;  as 
if  they  were  not  the  merest,  and  some  of  them  the 
most  foolish  assumptions.  The  argument  of  asser- 
tion is  one  in  which  your  church  is  very  powerful, 
because  with  a  certain  order  of  mind  it  is  so  potent, 
"With  many  it  is  sufficient  to  know  that  the  pope, 
the  bishop  or  the  priest  says  so.  And  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  conjecture  what  those  may  not  say  who 
affirm  that  they  can  change  a  little  wafer  made  of 
Jflour  into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  But 
you,  sir,  should  know  that  you  live  not  in  the  age 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  19 

of  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  that  you  are  read  by  in- 
creasing multitudes  in  your  own  church,  with  whom 
assertion  is  simply  assertion. 

The  argument  of  these  letters  is  one  maintaining 
and  enforcing  ecclesiastical  despotism.  Christ  ap- 
pointed apostles — over  the  twelve  he  placed  Peter 
as  pope — to  these  and  their  successors  he  gave  the 
govevnmentof  the  church  in  all  ages  and  countries; 
— and  the  power  of  the  keys  to  admit  or  to  exclude, 
to  bind  or  to  loose,  as  they  might  deem  meet.  And 
all  who  submit  not  to  this  external  arrangement 
which  you  call  "  the  body  of  the  Church,*'  must  be 
both  to  God  and  to  the  church  as  heathen  and  pub- 
licans. If  this  argument  is  true  then  there  is  not  a 
man  on  earth  who  can  be  saved,  however  he  may 
submit  to  the  yoke  of  Christ,  unless,  in  addition,  he 
puts  on  the  yoke  of  the  pope.  And  yet  the  gospel 
is  called  a  "  law  of  liberty  ;"  and  the  generous  and 
warm-hearted  Peter,  who,  although  according  to 
your  showing  the  first  pope,  yet  wore  no  shackles, 
declares,  "  of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no 
respecter  of  persons,  but  in  every  nation  he  that 
feareth  him,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted 
of  him."  Sir,  the  monstrous  conclusion  to  which 
it  leads  proves  your  argument  to  be  a  monstrous 
one  ;  and  that  argument  is  put  forth  at  a  time  when 
the  divine  right  of  kings  and  priests  to  enslave  the 
nations,  civilly  and  spiritually,  is  passing  away  like 
the  foam  upon  the  waters,  before  the  indignant 
scorn  of  the   world !      The   fate   of  the   doctrine 


20  kirwan's  reply 

of  divine  right  to  hold  in  bondage  the  bodies  and 
souls  of  men,  as  held  by  kings  and  papal  priests, 
reached  this  country  about  the  commencement  of 
last  Lent,  when  your  letters  died.  I  have  some- 
times thought  that  a  coroner's  jury  empanneled  to 
investigate  the  cause  of  the  death  of  your  letters 
would  render  the  following  verdict :  "  Died  because 
of  the  gracious  visitation  of  Almighty  God  upon  the 
doctrine  of  divine  right,  ad  held  by  kings  and  popes 
and  bishops  and  other  inferior  clergy,  which  has 
recently  taken  place  in  Europe." 

But  I  pass  from  the  general  impressions  made  by 
the  perusal  of  your  letters  to  the  consideration  of 
their  statements.  You  will  remember  that  my 
work  is  not  to  prove  any  thing  save  the  utter  truth- 
lessness  of  your  positions.  Your  numbered  para- 
graphs are  like  stones  in  a  pile,  in  contact,  but 
without  any  logical  arrangement  or  connection.  I 
will  cull  from  them  your  main  principles,  and  will 
seek  to  show  you  that  they  are  the  merest  papal 
assumptions.  In  doing  this  I  will  not  confine  myself 
to  your  arrangement,  nor  yet  to  your  language  or 
method  of  argumentation.  I  will  even  give  to  your 
principles  the  advantage  of  the  better  statement 
made  of  them  by  standard  papal  authors  ;  as  I  truly 
believe  that  nothing  is  finally  lost  by  fairness. 

1.  You  assert  that  the  Bible  has  no  authority  save 
what  your  church  gives  it,  and  that  it  must  be  under- 
stood aiid  received  as  your  church  interprets  it.  And 
you  flout  private  interpretation   as  the  root  of  all 


TO    BISHOP    HUGFES.  2'1 

heresy,  and  of  all  evil.  Although  this  is  not  among 
your  first  postulates,  I  select  it  as  the  first  for  exa- 
mination, because  of  its  fundamental  importance. 
If  I  have  no  right  to  read,  or  interpret  the  Bible,  or 
to  deduce  from  a  single  passage  of  it  a  meaning 
differing  from  that  which  your  church  puts  upon  it, 
then  controversy  is  ended.  I  am  shut  up  either  to 
return  to  holy  mother  or  to  go  to  hell.  Now,  sir, 
as  by  the  grace  of  God  I  intend  to  do  neither  the 
one  or  the  other,  I  will  show  you  that  the  principle 
above  asserted  is  a  false  assumption.  To  be  sure 
it  is  not  yours,  nor  Milner's,  nor  Hay's  merely,  it 
is  asserted  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  all  are 
cursed  who  refuse  to  receive  it. 

The  first  question  I  wish  to  ask  is,  where  is  the 
authority  you  claim  for  your  church,  given  her  ? 
Upon  this  point  I  must  have  proof  beyond  question. 
Do  you  assert  the  need  of  an  infallible  interpreter 
of  the  will  of  God  ?  Such  an  one  would  be  con- 
venient ; — but  where  is  such  need  asserted  ? — where 
is  such  an  interpreter  appointed  ?  If  you  point  me 
to  a  passage  of  Scripture  you  admit .  my  right  of 
private  interpretation,  for  I  must  exercise  my  judg- 
ment to  decide  whether  it  is  or  is  not  to  the  point. 
If  you  tell  me  that  uniform  tradition  asserts  the 
possession  of  this  authority  by  the  church,  how  do 
I  know  that  your  tradition  is  true  ?  Your  church 
has  corrupted  the  written  words ; — hence  I  may 
infer,  that  if  there  is  any  such  thing  as  unwritten 
tradition  she  has  corrupted  that  also. 


22  KIR  WAN's    REPLY 

The  Scriptures,  you  say  (No.  10),  owe  to  youT 
church  their  character  for  authenticity  and  inspira- 
tion. How  is  this  ?  The  Old  Testament  was  com- 
pleted, and  was  in  use  hundreds  of  years  before  the 
coming  of  Christ ; — the  Evangelists  and  Apostles 
who  wrote  the  New  Testament  were  inspired  so  to 
do  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  These  things  are  capable 
of  the  fullest  proof — nor  would  their  proof  be 
weakened  a  hair,  if  the  whole  papal  church  were 
swallowed  up  with  the  company  of"  Core."  Why 
is  the  Bible  more  than  any  other  ancient  book  in- 
debted to  your  church  for  its  character  ?  Do  we 
not  prove  the  Apocryphal  books  uninspired  which 
your  church  places  in  the  Canon  ? — and  with  equal 
facility  could  we  not  prove  the  Epistles  of  Paul  to 
be  inspired  if  your  church  had  taught  otherwise  ? 
Do  we  not,  with  the  utmost  facility,  show  all  your 
corruptions  of  Christianity  and  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  separate  the  falsa  from  the  true  as  easily  as 
does  the  husbandman  the  chaff  from  the  wheat  ? 

The  Scriptures,  as  we  possess  them,  existed  be- 
fore the  rise  of  your  church — before  a  general  coun- 
cil ever  commenced — before  a  declaration  was  ever 
made  by  a  council  as  to  the  canon  of  Scripture. 
Any  such  declaration  must  be  founded  on  antece- 
dent evidence.  And  unless  such  evidence  existed 
previous  to  the  declaration  of  it — the  declaration  it- 
self is  a  falsehood.  Let  it  then  be  granted  that  we 
have  no  evidence  of  the  truth  of  Scripture  save  what 
the  Church  of  Rome  gives  us,  and  the  whole  fabric 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  2S 

of  Christianity  totters  to  its  base.  Are  you  prepared 
for  this  result  ?  or  would  you  rather  sustain  Popery 
than  Christianity  ? 

Truth  is  the  great  object  proposed  by  God  to  our 
belief.  Religious  diifers  from  other  truth  only  in 
its  superior  importance.  AH  truths  in  the  universe 
are  connected  together,  and  make  an  harmonious 
whole.  They  strengthen  and  fortify  each  other. 
And  as  God  proposes  truth  to  our  belief,  he  has  en- 
dowed us  with  minds  capable  of  examining  the 
claims  of  all  things  solicitinor  our  belief,  and  has 
surrounded  us  with  motives  ever  impelling  us  to 
seek  and  to  love  the  truth.  We  have  in  the  works 
of  God  the  evidences  of  his  eternal  power  and  God- 
head— we  have  in  his  word  the  more  full  revelation 
of  his  will.  And  he  has  so  formed  us  that  we  can- 
not believe  without  proof,  and  that  we  cannot  reject 
with.  At  least  J  know  of  no  way  of  doing  other- 
wise save  by  turning  Papist.  Now  why  should  the 
Bible  be  exempted  from  the  general  law  which  rules 
my  acceptance  of  all  truth  ?  Whilst  permitted  to 
think  for  myself  on  all  other  subjects,  why  should  I 
be  forbidden  to  investigate  the  Scriptures  for  my- 
self ?  Why  bound  up  to  believe  them  only  as  your 
church  interprets  them  ?  Sir,  there  must  be  some 
priestly  device  at  the  bottom  of  all  this.  As  reason- 
ably might  your  church  forbid  me  to  believe  any 
thing  in  astronomy,  or  in  physical  or  moral  philoso- 
phy, contrary  to  her  teaching,  as  forbid  me'^to  receive 
the  Bible  save  in  the  sense  which  she  gives  it.    And 


24  kirwan's  reply 

you  remember  she  sent  Galileo  to  prison  for  teach- 
ing that  the  earth  moves  around  the  sun. 

I  must  believe  the  Scriptures  only  in  the  sense  of 
your  church — "  holy  mother  !"  But  who  is  she  ? 
where  is  her  residence  ?  You  define  her,  in  a  con- 
troversy with  a  late  distinguished  divine,  to  be  "  the 
visible  society  of  Christians,  composed  of  the  people 
who  are  taught  and  the  pastors  who  teach,  by  vir- 
tue of  a  certain  divine  commission  recorded  in  the 
28th  of  Matthew,  addressed  to  the  Apostles  and  their 
legitimate  successors  until  the  end  of  the  world." 
So  that  the  people  and  their  pastors  constitute  "  holy 
mother  church;"  and  "  holy  mother "  is  the  rule 
of  faith.  So  that  "  holy  mother "  is  the  rule  of 
"holy  mother ;"  that  is,  the  venerable  and  fretful 
old  lady  wills  as  she  wishes,  and  does  as  she  wills  ? 
Has  not  this  been  very  much  so  ? 

But  the  people  and  their  pastors  form  the  church, 
and  the  church  is  the  rule  of  faith  !  And  yet  the 
people  and  their  true  pastors,  those  who  daily  labor 
among  them,  visiting  their  sick,  and  burying  their 
dead,  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  rule.  The  au- 
thoritative meaning  of  Scripture  is  declared  by  your 
bishops,  and  even  of  these  not  one  in  ten  has  any 
thing  to  do  with  it.  What,  for  instance,  have  you 
to  do  with  it  ?  Practically  it  is  in  the  hands  of  the 
pope  and  his  cardinals.  So  that  "  holy  mother, ^^  the 
rule  of  faith,  is  made  up  of  a  few  holy  fathers,  many 
of  whom  as  to  sense  are  the  merest  drivelers,  and 
as  to  morals  the  merest  debauchees  !     Now,  sir,  if 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  25 

=  I  go  to  these  holy  fathers,  who,  individually,  are 
men,  but  who,  unitedly,  are  "  holy  ?nother,^'  for  the 
sense  of  Scripture,  must  not  my  religion  be  based 

^  Uf>on  man  ?  And  from  building  upon  such  men  I 
am  compelled  to  cry  out  in  the  language  of  the  Li- 
tany, *'  may  the  good  Lord  deliver  me." 

But  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that 
I  am  bound  to  receive  the  Scriptures  as  your  church 
interprets  them,  then  will  you  answer  me  a  few 
questions  ?  How  am  I  to  obtain  her  sense  of  them  ? 
On  the  greater  part  of  the  Scriptures  she  has  giveH 
forth  no  binding  interpretation.     At  what  period  of 

.-.'the  life  of  holy  mother  am  I  most  likely  to  get  a 

it  true  interpretation  ?  Is  it  when  she  was  Arian  with 
Pope  Liberius  ?  or  when  she  was  pagan  with  Mar- 
eellinus  ?  or  when  she  was  Pelagian  with  Pope 
Clement  XI  ?  or  when  she  was  infidel  with  Leo  X  ? 
or  when  strumpets  were  her  waiting  maids  with 
John  XII  and  Alexander  ?  or  is  it  when  she  was 
drunk  with  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  ?  or  when  rival 
popes  were  tearing  out  each  other's  bowels  ?  or  is  it 
when  in  the  height  of  her  charity  she  was  thunder- 
ing her  curses  from  Trent  against  all  who  refused 
to  say  Amen  to  her  decisions  ?  These,  sir,  are  very 
important  questions  to  be  answered,  as  I  may  be 
Arian,  Pelagian,  or  infidel,  a  Calvinist,  or  an  Armi- 
nian,  according  to  the  time  I  seek  from  holy  mother 
her  interpretations  of  the  word  of  God.  Perhaps 
my  reverence  for  the  venerable  old  lady,  now  in  her 
wrinkles  and  dotage,  might  be  greater  than  it  is, 

3 


26  kirwan's  reply 

were  it  not  for  my  sense  of  her  dissolute  and  change- 
ful life. 

But  I  find  I  have  finished  a  letter  without  finish- 
ing my  analysis  of  the  principle  under  examination. 
I  will  resume  it  in  my  next. 

Yours,  &c., 

KiRWAN. 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  f^ 


LETTER  III. 

Examination  ef  Church  interpretation  continued. 

My  dear  Sir, — In  my  last  letter  I  commenced, 
without  concluding,  an  examination  of  the  principle, 
that  the  Bible  has  no  authority  save  what  your  church 
gives  it,  and  that  it  must  ie  understood  and  received 
as  your  church  interprets  it.  Upon  this  principle, 
sufficiently  disproved  by  the  considerations  already 
presented,  1  have  a  few  things  more  to  say. 

I  must  receive  the  Scriptures  in  the  sense  and 
meaiiing  which  your  church  gives  them  !  God  is 
my  father,  and  Jesus  Christ  is  my  Saviour  as  well  as 
yours.  His  word  is  a  revelation  of  his  will  to  me  as 
well  as  to  you,  or  as  to  any  body  of  men  upon  earth, 
"  God  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake 
in  times  past  to  the  prophets,  and  in  these  last  days 
he  has  spoken  to  us  by  his  Son."  So  that  notwith- 
standing the  puerile  distinction,  unworthy  of  a  man 
of  sense,  you  make  (No.  40),  God  does  speak  to  me 
through  the  prophets,  and  his  Son,  in  his  word. 
And  yet  I  must  not  hear  him, — nor  consider  his  say- 
ings as  possessing  any  authority  or  meaning,  until 
holy  mother  gives  his  sayings  to  me  authority  and 
meaning  !     Tiiat  is,  I  must  hear  God  only  when  he 


38  KIR  WAN's    REPLY 

uses  the  lips  of  holy  mother  ;  lips  which  have  blis- 
tered under  the  curses  which  she  has  been  pronoun- 
cing against  me  for  ages  I  Holy  mother,  sir,  in  the 
bloom  of  her  youth,  and  in  the  maturity  of  her  years, 
"  lived  deliciously  and  courted  kings  to  her  couch." 
But  hers  has  been  a  dissolute  life.  She  has  made 
the  earth  drunk  with  the  wine  of  her  fornication. 
And  although  in  her  wrinkles  and  dotage,  you  now 
tell  me  that  I  can  hear  God  only  through  her ;  and 
that  I  must  bow  my  ear  to  the  stream  of  her  fetid 
breath,  and  at  the  risk  of  all  your  curses,  learn  God's 
will  only  as  she  expounds  it !  If  such  a  claim,  calmly 
put  forth,  is  not  a  proof  of  dotage,  what  can  be  ? 
Bishop  Hughes,  how  old  are  you  ? 

But  why  bind  me  to  receive  the  Scriptures  only 
in  the  sense  which  your  church  gives  them  ?  How 
can  I  know  that  she  gives  them  a  correct  sense  ? 
Or  must  I  take  this  for  granted  ?  The  popes  are 
admitted  to  be  infallible.  So  are  the  bishops  ;  and 
so  are  general  councils.  Pope  has  contradicted 
pope — bishop,  bishop — and  council,  council.  How 
then  can  I  confide  in  their  interpretation  of  Scripture  ? 
How  can  I  be  infallibly  assured  that  any  other  man, 
or  body  of  men,  is  infallibly  qualified  to  guide  me 
into  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  ?  If  I,  Kirwan, 
reject  my  own  prayerfully  received  sense  of  Scrip- 
ture for  yours,  John  Hughes,  then  are  not  you  above 
the  Scriptures  to  me  ?  And  do  not  I  virtually  reject 
what  God  says,  for  what  you  say,  who  can  now  and 


TO    BioHOP    HTJGHES.  39 

.  then  turn  a  sharp  comer  and  leave  tlie  truth  behind 
you  ?     And  if  this  is  not  infidelity,  what  is  it  ? 

But  to  this  you  reply  that  I  must  not  look  to  your 
interpretation,  but,  as  says  the  creed  of  Pius  IV,  to 
"  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers."  But  here 
again,  the  '•'  private  reasoner  "  has  some  important 
questions  to  ask.  Who  are  the  Fathers  ?  Where 
or  with  whom  do  they  begin  or  end  ?  This  is  an 
unsettled  question.  Were  they  not  uninspired  men 
and  fallible  ?  This  is  admitted.  Origen,  among 
other  errors,  taught  Universalism.  Augustine  re- 
tracted his  errors.  TertuUian  was  a  Montanist. 
And  can  fallible  men  make  an  infallible  rule  ? 

Besides,  the  early  fathers  wrote  but  little  in  the 
way  of  Scriptural  interpretation.  If  any  thing,  we 
have  scarcely  any  thing  from  the  Fathers  before  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  ;  and  but  little,  save 
fragments,  of  the  first  three  centuries,  and  these  cor- 
rupted. And  what  we  have  from  those  early  times 
serves  no  purpose  in  settling  the  points  in  controversy. 
They  differed  widely  among  themselves, — some  of 
them  condemn  your  Apocrypha — some  of  them  your 
absurd  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  And  yet 
whilst  these  fathers  were  fallible,  and  differed  among 
themselves — whilst  they  pointedly  condemn  in  some 
things  the  teachings  of  your  church,  and  wrote  but 
little  in  the  way  of  Scriptural  interpretation,  yet  we 
must  receive  the  Scriptures  "  according  to  the  unan- 
imous consent  of  the  Fathers."     Is  not  this  prepos- 


30  kirwan's  reply 

terous  ?     Have  you  not  excommunicated  your  coto^- 
mon  sense  and  reason  ? 

But,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  let  us  admit 
that  these  erring  and  contending  fathers  were  unan- 
imous in  their  support  of  the  distinguishing  doctrines 
of  your  church.  What,  then,  does  this  avail  ?  If 
unanimous  in  teaching  what  the  Scriptures  do  not, 
their  teaching  cannot  be  received;  ifin  what  the 
Scriptures  do  teach,  we  receive  that  without  them. 
Nor  is  unity  any  evidence  of  truth,  in  itself.  Men 
in  multitudes  have  been  united,  for  ages,  in  support- 
ing a  lie.  And  union  is  in  the  inverse  ratio  of 
knowledge.  The  more  perfect  the  ignorance,  other 
things  being  equal,  the  more  perfect  the  union. 
When  the  blind  lead  the  blind  they  cling  very  close 
together.  Individuals  in  full  vision  often  select  dif- 
ferent roads  to  the  same  place  ;  but  the  blind  crowd 
along  the  same  road,  and  cling  to  one  another  like 
swarming  bees,  even  oh  the  brink  of  the  precipice. 
Hence  the  proverb,  "  if  the  blind  lead  the  blind  both 
will  fall  into  the  ditch."  And  if  the  successors  of 
Moses,  who  sat  in  his  seat,  and  boasted  that  they 
were  his  ecclesiastical  descendants,  were  blind  lead- 
ers of  the  blind  ;  may  it  not  be  possible  that  the 
same  may  be  the  case  as  to  the  descendants  of 
Peter  ?  Your  letters,  now  before  me,  give  the 
plainest  evidence  that  the  eyes  of  your  mind  stand 
in  great  need  of  couching.  O  that  you  might  apply 
to  them  the  eye-salve  spoken  of  in  Revelation. 

But  you  reply,  this  is  forbidden   by  the  fact  that 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  <^ 

your  bishops  are  the  descendants  of  Peter,  and  that 
they  have  the  promise  of  divine  guidance.  But 
they  are  no  more  the  descendants  of  Peter,  than  were 
the  Jewish  priests  the  descendants  of  Moses  and 
Aaron.  So  that  reasoning  from  the  one  to  the  other 
this  plea  avails  nothing.  "  We  be  Abraham's  seed," 
said  the  Jews.  "  If  ye  were  Abraham's  children  ye 
would  do  his  works,"  replied  the  Saviour.  "  We 
be  Moses'  disciples,"  cried  the  Pharisees.  "  Had  ye 
believed  Moses  ye  would  have  believed  me,"  says 
Christ.  And  it  is  surprising  that  a  man,  like  you, 
professing  to  be  a  master  in  Israel,  and  a  chief  pas- 
tor in  the  church  of  God,  could  for  a  moment  lose 
sight  of  the  palpable  truth  that  the  true  evidence  pf 
apostolical  succession  is  apostolical  faith  and  prac- 
tice. In  your  fourth  letter,  (No.  41,)  you  speak  of 
Joanna  Southcote,  Joe  Smith,  and  father  Miller  with 
a  sneer ;  but,  sir,  the  most  absurd  absurdity  of  Joe 
Smith  was  clever  sense  when  compared  with  your 
principle  of  making  fallible  men  infallible  expound- 
ers of  God's  revealed  will,  and  sending  all  to  perdi- 
tion who  do  not  receive  their  unanimous  consent  as 
its  true  meaning,  when  no  such  consent  was  ever 
given,  or  can  be  found  !  Sir,  Joe  Smith  was  much 
more  of  a  pope  than  you  imagine.  He  damned, 
as  unblushingly  as  you  or  holy  mother,  all  that  did 
not  deem  him  and  his  cardinals  infallible,  and  that 
rejected  his  Mormon  tradition.  And  if  as  a  "  private 
reasoner  "  I  were  compelled  to  select  Joe  Smith  or 
John  Hughes  as  my  chief  Rabbi,  notwithstanding 


*2 


KIRWAN  S    REPLY 


"the  sympathies  of  my  Irish  nature,"  I  would  not 
long  hesitate  between  them.  I  have  no  great  relish 
for  the  nonsense  of  either  of  you,  but  I  could  swal- 
low his  with  far  less  difficulty  and  grimace,  than  I 
could  yours  ;  and  I  would  sooner  get  through.  My 
throat  would  not  have  to  be  stretched,  almost  to  the 
cracking  of  its  skin,  every  day  of  my  life,  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  down  some  monstrous  absurdity. 

But  you  plead  the  need  of  receiving  the  Scrip- 
tures in  the  sense  given  them  by  your  church,  to 
save  the  church  and  the  world  from  the  divisions 
and  schisms  which  are  the  necessary  result  of  pri- 
vate interpretation.  It  is  to  be  regretted,  on  the 
whole,  that  those  who  reject  church  interpretation 
are  so  much  divided  among  themselves.  But  it  is 
difficult  to  form  any  machinery,  however  perfect, 
without  some  friction.  Like  all  other  good  things, 
the  right  of  private  judgment  has  been  abused.  But 
what,  sir,  has  been  so  awfully  abused  as  the  doc- 
trines of  church  interpretation  and  sacramental 
grace,  two  of  the  prime  doctrines  of  holy  mother  ? 
Diversity  of  opinion  is  necessarily  connected  with 
the  exercise  of  the  right  of  private  judgment ;  as 
God  has  no  more  made  minds  to  think  alike  than  he 
has  faces  to  look  alike,  or  temperaments  to  act  alike. 
God  and  nature  abhor  dead  levels.  Uniformity 
with  diversity  seems  to  be  the  great  law  of  Jehovah. 
And  whether  to  surrender  our  right  of  private  judg- 
ment in  religious  things  for  the  sake  of  a  level  uni- 
formity, or  to  retain  it  with  the  variety  of  opinions 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  3^ 

which  may  spring  from  it,  is  tiie 'question  which 
here  divides  the  Papist  from  the  Protestant.  To  my 
mind  it  is  like  the  question  whetiier  we  shall  have  a 
free  open  sea,  with  its  ceaseless  sounding,  its  ever 
heaving  bosom,  and  its  billows  occasionally  rolled  to 
the  sky  by  the  tempest,  or  a  sea  bound  in  fetters,  with 
an  unruffled  bosom,  stagnating  by  day  and  by  night, 
and  sending  over  earth  and  air  its  putrid  exhala- 
tions. 

Whilst  I  deplore  the  divisions  among  Protestants 
and  feel  that  they  are  unnecessary,  evincing  less 
forbearance  than  passion,  yet,  sir,  does  holy  mother 
exclude  them  from  her  pale  by  her  stringent  rule 
of  church  interpretation  ?  Has  she  had  no  schisms 
in  her  bosom  ?  Among  her  numerous  progeny  have 
there  been  no  Mother  Ann  Lees,  no  Joe  Smiths,  no 
Father  Millers  ?  Perhaps,  sir,  you  forget  that  the 
fathers  of  Protestantism  have  contended,  in  every 
age,  with  all  forms  of  fanaticism ;  and  have  used 
all  weapons  against  them,  save  those  potent  ones  of 
your  church,  fire  and  faggot.  Has  your  church 
done  so  ?  Has  not  your  priesthood,  in  every  age, 
fostered  fanaticism  and  absurdity  ?  Liberius  pa- 
tronized Arianism,  a  branch  of  Socinianism.  Mon- 
tanus,  more  than  a  rival  for  Swedenborg,  was  patron- 
ized by  his  cotemporary  pope.  And  the  fanaticism 
of  Mother  Lee,  and  of  Joanna,  go  out  as  do  the  stars 
amid  the  effulgence  of  the  sun,  when  compared  with 
the  fanaticism  of  Beata  of  Cuenza,  who,  teaching 
that  her  body  was  transubstantiated  into  our  Lord's 


34  kirwan's  reply' 

body  J  u  as  conducted  with  processions  to  the  churches 
where  she  was  adored,  as  you  now  adore  the  host ; 
or  with  that  of  Clara  of  Madrid,  who.  claimed,  and^ 
was  allowed,  to  be  a  prophetess  ;  or  of  sister  Nati- 
vite,  who  saw  on  one  occasion  in  the  hands  of  the 
officiating  priest,  at  the  consecration  of  the  wafer,  a 
little  child,  living  and  clothed  with  light.  The 
child,  eager  to  be  eaten,  spoke  with  an  infantile 
voice  and  desired  to  be  swallowed  !  And  you,  sir, 
a  bishop  in  a  church  whose  history  is  crowded  with 
the  feats  of  such  fanatics,  and  whose  bishops  and 
popes  have  been  their  patrons,  will  quote  against 
Protestants  the  examples  of  a  few  fanatics  thaj  we 
have  ever  opposed,  to  prove  to  us  the  mischief  of 
interpreting  the  Bible  for  ourselves  !  Bishop  Hughes ! 
Bishop  Hughes  I !  0  Bishop  Hughes ! ! ! 

Nor  is  this  all.  You  dwell  upon  our  divisions 
and  schisms  as  proof  to  demonstration  against  our 
private  interpretation ;  forgetting  that  if  strong 
against  us,  it  is  equally  strong  against  church  in- 
terpretation. Have  you  never  read  of,  or  have  you 
conveniently  forgotten,  the  western  schism  which 
rent  the  bosom  of  holy  mother  ?  Have  you  forgot- 
ten the  feuds  between  the  Jansenists  and  the  Jesuits, 
and  those  caused  by  the  Augustines  and  the  Domi- 
nicans ?  Have  you  never  read  of  the  Scotists  and 
Thomists — of  the  war  about  the  immaculate  con- 
ception of  the  Virgin  Mary  between  the  Franciscans 
and  Dominicans — of  the  feud  between  the  Francis- 
cans and  Pope  John  ?     Through  every  eentuiT  of 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  35 

her  existence  the  bosom  of  holy  mother  has  been 
rent  by  internal  feuds  such  as  have  never  cursed 
the  Protestant  world.  And  at  this  very  hour  her 
bosom  is  like  the  bowels  of  Etna  when  on  the  eve 
of  an  eruption. 

Sir,  it  would  have  been  well  for  you  had  you 
made  yourself  better  acquainted  with  the  annals 
of  Popery  and  Protestantism,  to  use  your  own  clas- 
sical and  dignified  language,  "  before  you  had 
launched  your  shallow  bark  on  the  ocean  of  eccle- 
siastical history." 

I  will  recur  again  to  this  subject  in  my  next. 
Yovirs,  &c. 

KiRWAN. 


36  kirwan's  reply 


LETTER  IV. 

Examination  of  Church  interpretation  continned — Its  destrnctivc  eoi^fe- 
qnences — It  is  a  monstroiis  assumption. 

My  dear  Sir, — At  the  close  of  my  last  letter  I 
was  considering  your  argument  for  church  inter- 
pretation drawn  from  the  divisions  and  schisms 
which  prevail  among  Protestants.  Although  I  have 
shown  that  the  argument  against  private,  is  equally 
strong  against  church  interpretation,  I  have  a  few 
things  more  to  say  in  reference  to  it.  As  it  is  your 
taking  argument  with  weak  minds,  it  requires  more 
attention  than  its  merits  deserve.  Like  almost  all 
taking  arguments,  it  is  a  weak  one. 

I  have  already  shown  how  grievously,  in  every 
age,  your  church  has  been  rent  by  schism,  and  dis- 
graced by  fanaticism.  I  would  now  ask  why  the 
distinction  you  set  up  between  doctrine,  and  dis- 
cipline and  morals  ?  The  church  is  infallible  in 
doctrine,  but  not  in  discipline  or  morals !  And 
when  we  compare  the  things  in  which  she  is  in- 
fallible, with  those  in  which  she  is  not,  the  latter 
far  outnumber  the  former.  Now  why  the  distinc- 
tion ?  The  few  things  in  which  you  agree  are 
called  doctrine  ;  and  the  many  in  which  you  do 
not    agree    are  called   discipline   and  morals !     So 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  3T 

that  the  distinction  is  made  to  excuse  the  infinite 
diversity  of  opinion  that  exists  among  you  ;  and 
also  to  excuse  the  shocking  enormities  committed 
by  your  church  as  mere  matters  of  discipline  and 
morals!  And  yet,  singular  to  state,  your  church 
pronounces  equally  heavy  curses  against  those  who 
reject  her  discipline  and  morals,  on  which  she  has 
made  no  infallible  decision,  as  against  those  who 
reject  her  doctrines,  on  which  she  has  ! 

Now,  sir,  if  the  above  distinction  between  doc- 
trines, and  discipline  and  morals,  is  a  true  one, 
which  I  utterly  deny  ; — if  a  people  may  be  con- 
sidered a  unity  who  unite  in  a  few  radical  doctrines 
however  they  may  disagree  on  things  pertaining  to 
discipline  and  morals,  I  am  prepared  to  show  that 
the  unit  J"  of  the  Protestant  world  far,  very  far  sur- 
passes that  of  the  Papal.  The  things  in  which  we 
agree  are  more  numerous  and  more  important  than 
are  your  infallible  doctrines,  and  the  things  in 
which  we  disagree  are  less  numerous  and  less  im- 
portant than  are  your  matters  of  discipline  and 
morals.  And  yet  you  come  near  waxing  eloquent, 
and  becoming  interesting  on  our  diversity,  when 
contrasted  with  your  unity  !  But,  I  suppose  we 
must  excuse  you  on  the  ground  that  you  are  writing 
for  Roman  Catholics,  who,  poor  creatures,  are  ex- 
cluded from  the  ranks  of  "  private  '^  or  public 
"  reasoners."  Nothing  saves  this  argument  from 
derision,  but  my  unwillingness  to  offend  against 
decorum. 


^9  KIRWAN  S   REPLY 

"  The  church  gives  authority  and  meaning  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  we  must  receive  them  as  the  church 
interprets  them."  The  Scriptures,  the  Apocrypha, 
the  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers,  the  sacred 
canons,  the  decisions  of  councils,  and  oral  traditions, 
form  your  rule  of  faith.  And  as  these,  like  the 
Bible,  which  you  seem  as  much  disposed  to  ridicule 
as  to  eulogize,  are  made  up  of  paper,  types  and  ink, 
and  are  silent  when  you  ask  them  any  questions, 
they  need  a  living  interpreter.  And  to  avail,  he  or 
she  must  be  infallible.  This  living,  infallible  inter- 
preter is  your  church.  That  is,  as  I  have  already 
shown,  the  church  is  the  rule  of  the  church.  To 
him  who  is  infallible  all  faith  and  practice  are 
equally  true.  The  truth  of  principles  changes  as 
lie  changes.  Infallibility  prevents  the  correction  of 
error — makes  principles  however  opposite  equally 
true — obliges  the  infallible  one  when  he  goes  wrong 
to  defend  the  wrong,  and  to  stay  wrong  for  ever. 
Thus,  as  your  church  has  been  on  all  sides  of 
almost  all  questions,  because  infallible,  she  makes 
the  opposite  sides  equally  true ;  and  thus  lays  the 
axe  at  the  root  of  all  true  principles  and  of  all  true 
morals.  And  the  facts  in  the  case  prove  the  truth 
of  my  inference.  What  truer  sons  of  your  church 
has  the  earth  ever  borne  than  the  Jesuits  ?  And 
what  class  of  men  have  so  undermined  the  founda- 
tions of  all  true  principles  and  morals  !  Have  you 
read  Pascal's  Letters  ?  So  that  it  may  be  laid 
clown  as  a  principle  equally  true  of  men  and  of 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  3^ 

nations,  the  more  entirely  papal,  the  more  entire 
the  absence  of  sound  principles  and  sound  morals. 
The  maximum  of  the  one  is  always  in  connection 
with  the  minimum  of  the  other. 

I  think,  sir,  that  if  you  do  not,  all  "  private  rea- 
soners "  will  agree  that  I  have  shown  your  prin- 
ciple, that  "  the  Bible  has  no  authority  but  what 
your  church  gives  it,  and  that  we  must  receive  it  as 
your  church  interprets  it,"  is  the  merest  assump- 
tion. It  is  a  principle  unworthy  of  you  as  a  man  ; 
more  unworthy  of  you  as  a  minister  of  the  God  of 
truth  ;  and  deserving  only  the  scornful  rejection  of 
all  intelligent  and  thinking  men.  But  as  the  desti- 
nies of  this  ruined  world  and  of  the  true  church 
of  God  are  bound  up  in  the  principle,  let  us  look  at 
its  effects  when  carried  out. 

"  The  interpretation  of  the  church  ;"  this  is  your 
great  principle,  and  your  catholicon  for  all  divisions 
and  heresies.  The  Jewish  church  was  infallible,  as 
your  chief  writers  assert.  And  the  Jewish  peoj^e 
were  bound  to  receive  the  Scriptures  as  interpreted 
by  those  who  sat  in  Moses'  seat.  And  yet  this  in- 
fallible church,  by  its  infallible  teachers,  put  to  death 
the  Lord  of  glory.  Jesus  Christ,  then,  fell  a  victim 
to  the  very  principle  which  you  assert — the  princi- 
ple of  church  interpretation.  And  how  many  of  the 
most  devoted  followers  of  Jesus  Christ  have  fallen 
victims  to  the  same  principle,  we  are  not  to  know 
jntil  the  day  of  final  revealing.  ! 

Church  interpretation  is  exclusive  of  private  judg- 


40 

ment.  If  true  it  would  have  forever  prevented  the 
erection  of  the  Christiaji  church.  It  would  have 
bound  all  Jews  to  remain  Jews  forever,  and  all  other 
men  to  become  Jews  in  belief,  in  order  to  enter  hea- 
ven. Like  your  church  the  Jewish  made  void  the 
law  of  God  by  traditions.  Their  traditions  and 
church  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  were  all 
against  Jesus  Christ ;  how  then,  on  your  principles, 
could  the  foundations  of  the  church  of  Christ  be 
laid  ?  TKey  never  could  be.  How  were  they  laid  ? 
By  those  who  rejected  church  interpretation,  and 
who  for  themselves  examined  the  Scriptures,  and 
considered  the  evidences  which  proved  to  them  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  You,  sir,  as  a  minister,  owe 
your  standing  in  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the 
rejection  of  the  very  principle  which  you  assert, 
and,  with  so  much  flimsy  sophistry,  enforce ;  and 
to  the  adoption  of  the  principle  of  private  interpre- 
tation which,  in  seeking  to  vilify,  you  only  expose 
yourself  to  scorn.  Your  argument  is  contemptible, 
and  makes  you  ridiculous. 

Nor  is  this  all.  If  we  carry  out  your  principles 
how  can  you  expect  us  to  return  to  your  church  ? 
Let  me  make  the  case  my  own  to  give  point  and 
directness  to  what  I  say.  I  am  an  unbeliever,  but 
sincerely  inquiring  after  the  true  church ;  and  I 
go  to  your  residence  to  have  my  inquiries  answered. 
You  state  to  me  the  marks  of  the  true  church,  be- 
ginning with  that  of  unity ,  and  quote  some  Scripture 
in  confirmation.     But  what  must  I  do  ?  for  I  am  for- 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  41 

bidden  the  exercise  of  my  private  judgment.     If  I 
say  the  mark  is  a  true  one,  and  is  based  on  Scrip- 
ture, that  is  a  private  judgment  which  I  have  na 
right  to  exercise  ;  if  I  deny  it,  and  the  relevancy  of 
the  texts  quoted,  it  is  again  a  rejection  of  your  prin- 
ciple.    You  pass  on  to  the  next  mark,  sanctity,  and 
dwell  upon  your  holiness  of  doctrine.     To  be  satis- 
fied of  this  being  a  true  mark,  I  must  compare  your 
doctrines  with  those  of  the  Scriptures  ;  if  I  come  to 
the  conclusion  the  mark  is  a  true  one,  I  reject  your 
rule ;  if  to  the  opposite  conclusion  I  yet  reject  it. 
Our  conversation  ends,  and  I  retire  either  impressed 
by  your  arguments,  or  bewildered  by  your  sophis- 
try.   In  a  few  days  I  return,  saying,  "  Well,  Bishop 
Hughes,  I  have  deeply  considered  your  statements, 
and  I  have  concluded  that  they  are  true,  and  that 
yours  is  the  true  church  ;  and  I  wish  to  connect 
myself  with  it."     Would  you  receive  me  ?  Gladly. 
And  yet  by  receiving  me  you  deny  the  truth  of  your 
own  rule,  and  admit  that  a  man  on  his  private  judg- 
ment can  "  make  an  act  of  faith."    If  converts  can- 
not be  made  in  this  way  to  Popery  how  can  they 
be  ?     If  made  in  this  way  where  is  the  force  or  the 
truth  of  your  denunciations  of  private  judgment  ? 
If  men   have  no  right  to  read  or  to  judge  of  the 
Scriptures  for  themselves — no  right  to  form  an  opi- 
nion as  to  the  clashing  claims  for  the  true  church, 
why  the  series  of  letters  before  me,  in  which  bold 
assertion,  a  little  truth,  much  sophistry,  perverted 
texts  of  Scripture,  and  no  little  arrogance,  are  mixed 


42  kirwan's  reply 

and  mingled  together  to  prove  that  yours  is  the  true 
church,  and  to  induce  all  to  flee  to  her  fold  who 
wish  to  escape  perdition  ?  Sir,  your  doctrine  is  a 
suicidal  one  ;  your  church  cannot  live  with  it,  nor 
can  it  live  without.  It  is  gotten  up  for  babes  in  in- 
tellect, and  not  for  men. 

But  let  us  admit  the  full  truth  of  the  doctrine, 
and  that  it  is  binding  on  every  mortal ;  what  fol- 
lows ?  I  must  give  up  my  Bible  and  lock  up  my 
private  judgment.  Wishing  to  know  what  meaning 
the  church  gives  John  5  :  39,  I  apply  to  my  neigh- 
boring priest.  But  he  has  not  read  the  fathers,  nor 
the  canon  law,  nor  the  decrees  of  councils,  nor  the 
bulls  of  the  pope,  nor  the  Scriptures.  He  applies 
to  you  his  bishop  ;  nor  have  you  read  them.  You 
apply  to  the  archbishop  ;  nor  has  he  read  them.  He 
applies  to  the  cardinals  ;  nor  have  they  read  them. 
They  apply  to  the  pope  ;  nor  has  he  read  them.  I 
here  venture  the  assertion  that  there  is  not  a  living 
man  who  has  read  your  rule  of  faith.  How  can  I 
know  then  what  the  church  teaches  ?  Even  if  her 
teachings  were  harmonious,  there  is  no  knowing. 
But,  for  the  argument,  I  grant  that  the  pope  and  his 
cardinals,  who  virtually  compose  "  holy  mother," 
do  know  the  rule.  They  tell  the  archbishop,  he 
tells  you,  you  tell  the  priest,  and  the  priest  tells  me. 
And  however  my  common  sense  revolts  against  it, 
I  must  receive  it,  as  a  good  son  of  the  church  ! 

See  then  the  position  to  which  your  doctrine  re- 
duces  every   thinking   and   thoughtless    man.     It 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  48 

brings  us  all  on  our  knees  before  your  priests,  mul- 
titudes of  whom  are  as  unprincipled  and  wicked  as 
they  are  ignorant ;  deprives  us  of  the  right  of  private 
judgment,  and  compels  us  to  open  our  minds  and 
souls  to  whatever  nonsense,  concocted  in  Italy,  they 
might  see  fit  to  ladle  into  them. 

These,  sir,  are  the  considerations  which  prove 
the  principle  I  have  been  considering  not  only  a 
mere  but  a  monstrous  assumption ;  a  principle  which, 
whether  true  or  untrue,  is  equally  fatal  to  the  claims 
of  your  church.  I  deeply  regret  that  any  clever 
son  of  old  Ireland,  after  breathing  so  long  the  air  of 
freedom,  should  lend  himself  to  the  support  of  such 
a  monstrous  principle.  The  logical  power  which 
you  display  in  its  support  gives  you  high  claims  to 
the  chair  of  logic  in  the  university  of  Heliopolis ! 

How  pleasant  it  is  to  turn  from  such  a  rule  to  the 
simple  and  pure  word  of  God,  given  to  be  a  lamp  to 
our  feet  and  a  light  to  our  paths.  If  with  that  lamp, 
we  wander  from  the  way,  the  fault  is  in  ourselves. 
It  is  not  because  of  the  obscurity  with  which  God 
has  revealed  his  will,  but  because  our  foolish  minds 
are  darkened  by  reason  of  sin.  But  I  must  not 
forget  that  my  only  object  is  to  show  the  utter  fal- 
lacy of  your  principles. 

Yours, 

KiRWAN. 


44 


LETTER  y. 

The  Papal  Chnrch  theory — A  mistake  in  selecting  Peter  for  the  tiara — The 
prayer  of  Christ  for  Peter  realized,  for  him  and  all  his  successors — The 
question,  Was  Peter  pope  1  examined. 

My  dear  Sir, — In  my  last  letter  I  concluded  my 
analysis  of  the  principle  you  assert,  that  the  Bible 
has  no  authority  save  what  your  church  gives  it, 
and  that  it  must  be  understood  and  received  as  your 
church  interprets  it.  A  principle  more  untrue,  more 
absurd,  more  suicidal,  has  never  been  asserted.  It 
cannot  be  more  absurd,  but  it  is  infinitely  more 
dangerous,  than  your  doctrine  of  transubstantiation. 
Although  the  refutation  of  that  principle  saps  the 
foundation  of  all  that  you  have  written,  yet  there 
are  other  principles  mixed  up  with  your  postulates 
that  require  notice.  Among  these  is  the  principle 
involved  in  your  theory  of  the  church.  As  the  para- 
graph which  you  mark  5,  contains  the  great  out- 
line of  your  church  theory,  I  will  here  quote  it 
entire. 

"5.  But  twelve  Apostles,  invested  with  equal 
authority,  might  disturb  the  order  and  defeat  the 
object,  which  their  Lord  had  appointed  them  to 
establish  and  secure.  His  kingdom  was  to  be  one; 
united  in  itself.     His  sheep  were  to  be  comprised 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  45 

in  '  one  fold,*  under  '  OTie  shepherd/  and  not  under 
twelve.  Accordingly,  out  of  the  twelve,  being  all 
Apostles,  and  as  such  equal  in  dignity  and  au- 
thority, He  selected  one,  Peter  ;  and  in  addition  to 
the  Apostleship,  which  he  enjoyed  like  the  others, 
conferred  on  him  special,  singular,  and  individual 
prerogative  and  power,  which  had  not  been  con- 
ferred on  the  other  eleven,  either  singularly  or  col- 
lectively ;  and,  as  our  Lord  had  said  many  things 
to  the  multitude,  at  large,  and  some  things  to  the 
Apostles  alone,  so,  also,  He  addressed  many  in- 
structions  to  the  Apostles  as  such,  including  Peter, 
and  some  things  to  Peter  alone,  in  which  the  others 
had  no  direct  lot  or  part.  Satan,  he  said,  desired 
them  (all),  that  he  might  sift  them  as  wheat,  but 
He  prayed  for  Peter,  that  his  faith  might  not  fail ; 
and  that  he,  being  once  converted,  should  confirm 
his  brethren.  The  efficacy  of  this  prayer  of  the 
Man-God,  has  been  realized  in  His  church,  from 
the  days  of  Cephas  himself,  through  the  whole  line 
of  his  successors,  down  to  the  exercise  of  the  chief 
Apostleship^  in  our  own  times,  by  the  great  and 
illustrious  Pius  IX." 

The  great  papal  idea  here  asserted  is  the  placing 
of  Peter  over  the  other  Apostles  as  their  superior, 
and  as  the  "  Vicar  of  Christ,"  and  as  the  head  of 
the  church,  and  the  perpetuation  of  this  office  in  his 
successors,  down  to  the  present  day.  Do  you  not 
know,  sir,  that  these  claims  set  up  in  behalf  of 
Peter  have  been  proven,  very  many  times,  to  be 
without  the  shadow  of  a  foundation  ?  And  yet  you 
assert  them  as  confidently  as  if  they  had  never  been 
questioned,  and  quote  Scripture  to  prove  them,  just 


46  kirwan's  reply 

as  if  we  had  a  right  to  form  any  opinion  adverse 
to  yours  on  the  subject !  Before  attempting  to  show, 
what  has  been  so  often  shown  before,  that  poor  Peter 
was  never  made  pope,  there  are  one  or  two  ideas  I 
wish  to  suggest  just  here. 

Do  you  not  think  that  your  church  made  a  mis- 
take in  selecting  Peter  for  the  tiara  ?  Would  you  not 
have  succeeded  better  with  some  of  the  other  Apos- 
tles, one  of  the  "  sons  of  thunder,"  for  instance  ? 
And  how  papal  would  be  the  idea, — a  son  of 
thunder,  "  thundering  from  the  Vatican  !"  Would 
you  not  have  succeeded  with  John  better  than  with 
Peter  ?  You  could  have  urged  in  his  behalf  that 
he  was  the  beloved  disciple — that  he  was  often  in 
the  bosom  of  his  Lord — :that  Peter  on  a  certain 
occasion  sent  him  to  ask  of  the  Saviour  a  question 
which  he  feared  to  ask  himself — that  he  did  higher 
service  to  the  church  by  his  writings,  which  form 
so  large  a  part  of  the  New  Testament — that  he  out- 
ran Peter,  and  reached  first  the  sepulchre — that  he 
outlived  all  the  other  Apostles  !  And  this  would 
save  you  all  questions  about  John  the  beloved  dis- 
ciple, the  inspired  Apostle,  the  lovely  evangelist, 
being  subject  to  a  successor  of  Peter  who  probably 
had  never  seen  Christ,  nor,  perhaps,  Peter.  If  John 
were  your  candidate  you  could  not  say  so  much 
about  "  this  rock,"  nor  about  "  the  keys  ;"  but  then 
you  would  not  be  as  pressed  as  now  about  "  get 
thee  behind  me,  Satan,"  about  Peter's  swearing  so, 
and  denying  his  Master.    My  opinion  is,  but  I  am  a 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  47 

"  private  reasoner,"  that  you  would  have  succeeded 
better  with  John.  I  would  advise  you  to  correct 
tradition,  for  I  have  no  doubt  she  has  erred ^  and 
substitute  John  for  Peter.  You  will  find  it  a  won- 
derful relief. 

The  use  you  make  of  the  text  you  quote  in  the 
above  paragraph  strikes  me  very  singularly.  Satan 
desired  the  Apostles,  as  he  once  did  Job,  that  he 
might  sift  them  as  wheat.  Knowing  Peter  to  be 
most  in  danger  of  them  all,  he  prayed  especially 
for  him  ;  and  from  this  passage,  whose  only  object 
is  to  show  that  poor  Peter  was  more  in  danger  of 
falling  under  the  influence  of  the  devil  than  any 
of  his  brethren,  you  deduce  an  argument  for  his 
supremacy  !  I  have  no  doubt,  if  hard  pressed,  that 
like  some  astute  critics  of  former  days,  you  could 
find  the  history  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  Iliad 
of  Homer !  What  bounds  can  confine  the  power 
of  a  man  who  can  create  God  out  of  a  wafer  ? 

Consider  v/ell  the  following  sentence  in  the  above 
paragraph  ;  "  the  efficacy  of  this  prayer  of  the  Man- 
God,  has  been  realized  in  his  church,  from  the  days 
of  Cephas  himself,  through  the  whole  line  of  his 
successors  .  .  .  down  to  the  great  and  illustrious 
Pius  IX."  Considering  all  things  this  is  a  most 
extraordinary  assertion.  That  is,  Peter's  faith 
never  failed  ;  nor  has  the  faith  of  a  single  pope 
from  Peter  to  Pius  !  Notwithstanding  the  prayer 
of  his  Master,  Satan  sifted  Peter.  In  the  hour  of 
severe  trial  his  faith  failed.     When  accused  in  the 


48  ktrwan's  reply 

palace  of  Pilate  of  being  one  of  the  disciples,  "  he 
began  to  curse  and  to  swear,  saying,  I  know  not  the 
man."  And  is  it  in  this  way  that  the  efficacy  of 
that  prayer  "  has  been  realized  through  the  whole 
line  of  his  successors  ?"  And  yet,  sir,  Peter, 
cursing  and  swearing,  was  an  angel,  in  comparison 
with  many  in  \'  the  line  of  his  successors."  I 
know  not  how  you  could  make  an  assertion  more 
historically  false  ;  and  the  truth  of  which  your  own 
writers,  yes,  and  John  Hughes  himself,  deny.  -'^- 

But  the  question  returns,  Was  Peter  made  pope, 
to  exercise  supreme  authority  in  the  church  ;  and 
was  the  power  thus  conferred  upon  him  hereditary, 
to  descend  to  all  his  successors  in  the  See  of  Rome  ? 
This  is  a  doctrine,  or  principle,  with  which  your 
church  stands  or  falls.  The  pope  is  the  centre  of 
unity,  and  to  be  separated  from  him,  according  to 
your  showing,  is  to  be  cast  out  among  heathens  and 
publicans.  This  principle,  involving  the  existence 
of  your  church,  and  my  salvation,  I  deny,  and  put 
you  on  the  proof. 

If  called  to  prove  this  principle  in  a  court  of 
justice,  how  would  you  proceed  ?  Would  you  call 
upon  tradition  to  give  her  testimony  ?  But  tradi- 
tion has  been  in  the  keeping  of  the  pope  ;  and  this 
would  be  like  calling  upon  the  pope  to  testify  to  his 
own  supremacy,  which,  in  view  of  the  power  and 
emoluments  of  his  office,  I  have  no  doubt  he  would 
be  willing  to  do.  But  would  his  testimony  be  re- 
ceived ?     Would  you  invoke  the  aid  of  the  Scrip- 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  #9 

lures  ?  But  this  would  be  giving  up  one  of  your 
fundamental  principles ;  as  the  Scriptures  to  us 
have  no  sense  but  what  the  church,  which  is  vir- 
tually the  pope,  gives  them.  This  would  be  again 
calling  on  the  pope  to  testify  to  his  own  supremacy, 
which  could  not  be  admitted.  But  supposing  you 
admit  the  common  sense  meaning  of  the  Scriptures 
to  bear  on  the  case,  which  every  booy  not  a  Papist 
is  willing  to  do,  where  would  you  commence  ? 

Would  you  cite  the  very  pertinent  passage  in 
Luke  (xxii.  24 — 30),  where  the  Saviour  so  sharply 
rebukes  his  disciples,  because  there  was  a  strife 
amongst  them  as  to  which  of  them  should  be 
greatest  ?  or  that  of  Mark  (ix.  34),  where,  again 
reproving  them  for  their  contention  about  pre- 
eminence, he  says :  '•'  If  any  man  desire  to  be  the 
first,  the  same  shall  be  last  of  all  and  servant  of 
all."  Would  not  the  judge  say,  "  Bishop  Hughes, 
these  texts  are  not  to  the  point ;  for  if  Peter  were 
placed  over  the  disciples,  why  contention  among 
them  for  pre-eminence  ?  Would  not  Christ  have 
settled  the  matter  at  once,  and  say,  contend  no 
more,  I  have  made  Peter  your  pope  V 

Driven  thence,  would  you  next  cite  the  passage 
in  Ephesians  (iv.  11),  where  Paul  enumerates  the 
various  kinds  of  teachers  which  Christ  on  his  as- 
cension gave  to  the  church,  as  apostles,  prophets, 
evangelists,  pastors,  teachers  for  the  perfecting  of 
the  saints, — and  the  parallel  passage  in  1  Corinthi- 
ans (xii.  28)  ?     Would  not  the  judge  again  say, 

5 


JPI  KIRWAN  S    REPLY 

"  Bishop  Hughes,  these  are  not  to  the  point,  as 
they  say  nothing  about  a  pope,  nor  a  word  about 
the  supremacy  of  Peter." 

Foiled  again  here,  would  you  next  cite  the  passage 
(1  Cor.  i.  12)  which  informs  us  of  pastors  in  the 
church  of  Corinth,  one  claiming  to  be  of  Paul,  ano- 
ther of  A  polios,  and  another  of  Peter  ?  and  then 
would  you  turn  to  the  passage  in  Galatians  (ii.  14), 
where  Paul  most  sharply  rebukes  Peter  for  his  dis- 
simulation ?  Would  not  the  judge  reply,  "  Bishop 
Hughes,  what  do  you  mean  ?  If  Peter  were  pope, 
why  did  he  not  excommunicate  the  parties  of  Paul 
and  Apollos  at  Corinth,  those  early  protestants 
against  his  supremacy  ?  If  he  were  pope,  wliy  for 
a  moment  permit  Paul  at  Antioch  to  dispute  his 
right  to  dissemble  when  circumstances  required  him 
so  to  do  ?  These  passages,  sir,  are  against  you,  in- 
stead of  proving  the  position  3/0U  assert.'' 

Foiled  again,  would  you  cite  the  passage  in  Acts 
(viii.  14),  where  the  apostles  in  Jerusalem  sent 
Peter  and  John  to  Samaria  to  assist  in  carrying 
on  the  good  work  there  ;  and  that  other  passage  in 
the  15th  chapter  of  Acts,  where  James  declares  the 
decision  of  the  council  at  Jerusalem,  called  to  con- 
sider some  ceremonial  questions  started  among  the 
churches  of  the  Gentiles  by  Judaizing  teachers  ? 
The  judge  would  again  reply,  "  These  passages  are 
not  to  the  point ;  for  if  Peter  were  pope,  would  he 
bear  to  be  sent  by  those  beneath  him  to  Samaria  ? 
Would  he  permit  James  to  preside  in  Jerusalem,  at 


TO    BISHOl^    HUGHES.  51 

that  first  council,  and  to  declare  its  will ;  duties 
which  devolved  on  him  by  right  of  office  ?  These 
passages,  sir,  are  sadly  against  you." 

You  now,  with  some  little  excitement  created  by 
these  repulses,  quote  the  passage  in  Matthew  (xvi. 
18,  19)  :  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I 
build  my  church  ;  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  ke5'^s  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  This  you  do  with  an  air 
of  assurance,  feeling  that  you  have  trapped  the  judge 
at  last.  But  he  replies,  being  at  once  a  Christian 
and  a  sound  lawyer,  "  Bishop  Hughes,  these  are  dis- 
puted texts  as  to  their  true  import ;  and  the  point 
tliat  you  wish  to  establish,  being  one  of  transcendent 
importance,  should  have  something  to  sustain  it  be- 
sides texts  of  controverted  meaning.  You  so  explain 
this  text  as  to  make  Peter  the  foundation  of  the 
church  ;  but  Peter  himself  denies  this,  by  asserting 
that  Christ  is  its  foundation  (1  Peter,  2d  chap). 
Paul  also  denies  it  when  he  says  that  Christ  Jesus 
is  the  only  foundation  that  has  been,  or  can  be  laid 
(1  Cor.  iii.  11)  ;  and  when  he  represents  Jesus 
Christ  himself  as  the  chief  corner-stone  (Eph.  ii.  20). 
And  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  Origen,  Cyril,  Hilary, 
Augustine,  make  '*  the  rock  "  to  mean,  not  Peter, 
but  the  faith,  or  confession  of  Peter.  And  as  to  the 
gift  of  the  keys,  that  avails  you  nothing  as  to  the 
supremacy  of  Peter,  for  they  were  given  equally  to 
the  other  apostles  as  to  him.  And  besides,  I  do  not 
see  what  could  be  gained  by  placing  the  church 
upon  Peter  ;  as,  for  all  interests  concerned,  it  is 
better  that  it  should  be  built  upon  Christ." 


52  KIRWTiN's    REPLY 

Thus  repulsed  on  every  hand,  I  hear  you  ask,  in 
an  excited  tone,  rather  warm  for  a  bishop,  "  If  these 
evidences  are  rejected,  what  will  your  honor  admit 
as  bearing  upon  the  point?"  With  the  calmness 
becoming  a  judge,  he  replies,  "  Bishop  Hughes,  J 
want  proof,  beyond  question,  that  Jesus  Christ  made 
Peter  pope.  I  want  clear  proof  of  the  fact  that  he 
ever  exercised  the  power  of  the  pope  in  any  one 
case.  I  want  proof  that  ever  one  of  the  apostles  or 
any  other  contemporary  ever  referred  to  him,  or  ap- 
plied to  him  as  pope.  And  as  your  object  is  to 
prove  the  perpetuity  of  the  popedom,  if  you  prove 
that  Peter  was  invested  with  supremacy  over  the 
other  apostles,  I  want  you  then  to  prove  that  that 
supremacy  was  not  to  end  with  his  death,  but  that 
it  was  to  be  held  in  fee  for  his  successor  for  ever. 
When,  sir,  these  points  are  proved,  and  not  before^ 
you  may  look  for  a  decision  in  your  favor.  Have 
you  proof  as  to  these  points  ?" 

Looking  upon  a  judge  with  disdain  who  thus  re- 
quires you  to  make  brick  without  straw,  and  to 
prove  what  so  many  ages  have  taken  for  granted, 
you  collect  your  papers  and  make  your  exit. 

Sir,  your  assertion  of  the  supremacy  of  Cephas  is 
the  merest  assumption,  and  I  think  you  must  see  it 
to  be  so.  You  would  not  claim  the  possession  of  an 
acre  of  land  in  an  Irish  bog  if  you  could  advance  no 
better  claim  to  it  than  you  put  forth  for  the  su- 
premacy of  Peter.     But  the  end  is  not  yet. 

Yours, 

KlRWAN. 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  58 


LETTER  VI. 

Was  Peter  pope  ?  examination  continned — But  two  arguments  that  cannot 
be  answered— Tillotson's  opinion. 

My  dear  Sir, — In  my  last  letter  I  entered  upon 
an  examination  of  the  claims  of  the  pope  to  suprem- 
acy without  concluding  it.  I  showed  you  that  in 
the  testing  of  these  claims,  the  testimony  of  tradition 
was  inadmissible  ;  and  that  the  teaching,  the  facts, 
and  the  tenor  of  the  New  Testament,  are  directly  in 
opposition  to  them.  But  as  a  man  of  spirit,  greatly 
unwilling  that  a  mere  "  private  reasoner "  should 
have  even  the  appearance  of  victory  over  you,  you 
appear  again  in  court  to  prove,  by  other  evidence, 
that  Peter  was  clothed  by  Christ  with  supremacy, 
and  that  he  was  first  pope  of  Rome.  The  jud^e 
having  already  decided  against  the  testimony  ad- 
duced to  prove  the  first  point,  and  having  called  for 
evidence  which  you  cannot  adduce,  you  address 
yourself  to  the  second,  to  prove  that  Peter  was  the 
first  pope  of  Rome.  You  state  the  point,  and  his 
honor  calls  for  the  testimony.  And  with  an  air  of 
triumph  you  adduce  the  early  records  of  the  church, 
from  its  foundation  to  the  fifth  century,  among  which 
are  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.     The  judge 

5* 


1^  KIRWAN  S    REPLY 

says,  "  Well,  Bishop  Hughes,  we  will  commence 
with  these  documents,  and  examine  them  in  their  or- 
der." The  proposition  is  a  fair  one,  and  you  consent. 

"  Mark,"  says  the  judge,  "  was  a  friend  atid  fol- 
lower of  Peter.  He  wrote  his  gospel  at  Rome, 
about  thirty  years  after  the  ascension  of  Christ. 
Some  of  the  fathers  even  say  that  it  was  revised  by 
Peter.  Does  he  say  any  thing  about  Peter  being 
pope  of  Rome  ?"  You  reply,  "  No,  Mark  is  silent 
on  the  subject."     So  that  document  is  laid  aside. 

"  Here  are  Peter's  own  letters,"  says  the  judge, 
"  written  but  a  short  time  previous  to  his  death, 
thirty  years  at  least  after  his  alleged  investiture  with 
the  supremacy.  Do  they  say  any  thing  upon  the 
subject?"  "No,"  you  reply,  "it  would  not  be 
modest  in  him  lo  say  any  thing  about  the  matter." 
So  these  are  laid  aside,  the  judge  remarking  in  an 
under  tone,  "  It  would  have  been  well  if  the  suc- 
cessors of  Peter  had  imitated  his  modesty,  who,  after 
being  nearly  forty  years  pope,  in  two  letters  to  the 
churches  says  not  a  word  about  his  supremacy." 

"  Next  are  the  letters  of  Paul,"  says  the  judge, 
"  written  from  Rome,  and  to  the  Romans ;  do  they 
bear  any  testimony  to  the  point  to  be  proved  ?  His 
letter  to  the  Romans  was  written  several  years  after 
Peter  was  m'ade  Pope  there  ;  does  he  say  any  thing 
about  pope  Peter  ?  At  the  close  of  the  letter  he 
sends  his  affectionate  salutations  to  upwards  of 
twenty  persons ;  does  he  mention  pope  Peter  ? 
When,   according  to  your  showing,  Peter  was  in 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  56 

the  plenitude  of  his  power  at  Rome,  Paul  was  taken 
there  as  a  prisoner.  Whilst  there  he  wrote  several 
of  these  epistles  ;  is  Peter  alluded  to  in  them  as 
pope  ?  is  he  named  at  all  ?  If  he  was  there,  Bishop 
Hughes,  how  do  you  account  for  what  Paul  writes 
to  Timothy  (2d  Tim.  iv.  16),  "  At  my  first  answer 
....  all  men  forsook  me  ?"  Does  Peter  play 
again,  in  the  court  of  Caesar,  the  part  he  played  in 
the  palace  of  Pilate  ?  Could  Paul  be  a  prisoner  in 
Rome  for  two  or  more  years,  and  pope  Peter  never 
do  him  any  kindness  ?  Could  he  have  done  him 
any  kindness,  and  yet  Paul  never  speak  of  it  to  his 
friends  ?     How  is  all  this  ?" 

Vexed  to  the  quick  by  these  questions,  for  even 
bishops  have  feelings,  and  plainly  perceiving  that 
his  honor  is  a  "  private  reasoner,"  you  reply,  "  we 
will  lay  aside,  if  you  please,  those  documents  which 
form  the  New  Testament,  and  pass  on  to  the  next 
in  order.  They  have  always  been  wrested  by 
*  private  reasoners '  to  their  own  destruction,  who 
are  incapable  of  '  making  an  act  of  faith.'  "  "  But 
before  we  lay  them  aside,"  says  the  judge,  *'  do  you 
admit,  bishop,  that  they  give  no  testimony  to  the 
point  before  the  court  ?"  You  give  a  reluctant  as- 
sent. He  again  asks,  •'  How  do  you  account  for  the 
fact  that  they  give  no  testimony,  considering  the  pe- 
culiar circumstances  under  which  they  were  writ- 
ten ?"     You  bite  your  lips,  but  are  speechless. 

After  waiting  a  few  minutes  for  a  reply,  the  judge 
says,  "  We  will  proceed  to  the  next  document ;  what 


96  kirwan's  reply 

is  it  ?  what  does  it  say  ?"  "  Here,"  you  say,  "  is 
Jerome,  who  says  that  Peter  went  to  Rome  in  the 
second  year  of  Claudius,  and  was  bishop  there 
twenty-five  years."  "  But,"  says  the  judge,  "  Je- 
rome wrote  about  the  year  400,  and  how  did  he 
Jcnow  ?  where  did  he  get  the  fact  ?  In  the  12th 
year  of  Claudius,  Paul  went  to  Jerusalem  and  found 
Peter  there.  Did  he  run  away  from  Rome  ?  Do 
popes  now  go  from  Rome  to  Jerusalem  ?  or  was  he 
like  some  bishops  in  our  day,  who  love  the  fleece 
more  than  the  flock,  a  non-resident  ?  In  the  reign 
of  Nero,  who  succeeded  Claudius,  Paul  went  to 
Rome,  and  found  the  people  there  quite  uninformed 
as  to  the  faith  of  Christ  (Acts  xxviii.  17-24).  If 
Peter  was  pope  there  for  so  many  years  previous, 
what  was  he  about  ?  Besides,  the  apostles  were 
ministers  at  large  ;  their  duty  was,  not  to  abide  in 
any  city,  not  to  demit  their  general  for  a  local  au- 
thority, but  to  go  into  all  the  earth,  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature.  So  that  if  these  docu- 
ments are  true,  they  show  that  Peter,  at  least,  was 
disobedient  to  the  ascending  command  of  his  Lord, 
by  locating  himself  at  Rome,  instead  of  laboring  to 
extend  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  So  that  if 
these  papers  are  true,  and  if  they  establish  the  point 
you  press  so  earnestly,  they  will  simply  prove  the 
unfaithfulness  of  Peter.  If  not  true,  your  cause  is 
lost ;  if  true,  Peter  was  a  disobedient  apostle,  and 
ought  to  be  condemned,  instead  of  being  followed  and 
eulogized,  for  seeking  his  own  ease  instead  of  obey, 
ing  his  Master's  command." 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  57 

As  the  judge,  seeking  only  the  truth,  places  you 
in  this  sad  dilemma,  I  see  your  Irish  heart  swelling 
with  emotions.  You  seize  your  crook  and  youl 
keys,  and  glance  a  wrathful  look  at  the  "  private 
reasoner,"  so  unfit  to  wear  the  ei*mine.  But  )'our 
sober  second  thoughts  return,  and  you  ask,  with  a 
tone  of  smothered  indignation,  "  What  proof  does 
your  honor  want  that  Peter  was  bishop  of  Rome  ? 
What  proof  will  you  admit  that  the  popes  of  our 
church  are  his  true  successors  ?" 

His  honor  replies  calmly  but  decidedly,  "  Bishop 
Hughes,  the  point  you  wish  to  prove  is  one  of  vital 
importance.  It  is  the  hinge  upon  which  many 
grave  questions  turn,  which  deeply  concern  the  des- 
tinies of  our  race.  So  you  and  I  believe.  To  prove 
it  I  demand  of  you,  not  old  wives'  fables,  but  testi- 
mony so  clear  and  direct,  as  to  place  it  beyond  a 
doubt.  As  to  his  being  bishop  of  Rome,  or  being 
ever  at  Rome,  the  Scriptures  are  silent ;  and  that 
they  are  silent,  to  you  must  be  very  embarrassing.. 
And  not  only  so,  but  upon  this  vital  point  the  apos- 
tolic men  who  conversed  with  the  apostles  are 
equally  silent  as  the  Scriptures.  Clemens,  Barna- 
bas, Hermas,  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  say  not  a  word 
upon  the  subject.  At  about  the  close  of  the  second 
century  Irena^us  records  it  as  a  tradition  received 
from  one  Papias,  and  is  followed  by  your  other  au- 
thorities. But  who  Papias  was,  whilst  there  are 
various  conjectures,  nobody  knows.  And  Eusebius 
speaks  of  the  matter  as  a  doubtful  tradition.     Here, 


5S 

sir,  is  the  amount  of  your  testimony  ;  it  resolves  it- 
self into  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  a  prattling  Papias, 
v/ho  told  Irenseus  that  somebody  told  him  that  Peter 
was  pope  at  Rome  !" 

"  Now,  sir,  the  evidence  I  require  is,  first,  that  he 
was  ever  at  Rome  ;  and  secondly,  that  if  there,  he 
was  pope  of  the  universal  church.  And  upon  these 
points  I  will  admit  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures, 
the  apostles,  or  any  competent  cotemporary.  If  you 
have  any  such  testimony  produce  it."  You  reply, 
*'  This  is  asking  too  much  of  an  infallible  church, 
whose  unwritten  tradition  is  of  equal  authority  with 
the  written  word."  His  honor  replies,  "Bishop 
Hughes,  it  is  asking  a  little  too  much  to  ask  us  to 
believe  without  evidence." 

"  You  ask,"  continues  the  judge,  "  what  evidence 
I  will  admit  to  prove  that  the  popes  are  the  suc- 
cessors of  Peter  ?  I  want  you,  first,  to  prove  that 
Peter  was  pope  ;  if  he  was  not  he  has  no  successors. 
If  he  was  pope,  I  then  wish  you  to  explain  why  he 
was  made  pope,  whilst  he  was  set  apart  as  the 
Apostle  of  the  circumcision.  You  send  him  to  the 
Gentiles  whilst  liis  peculiar  vocation  was  to  the  Jews. 
I  wish  you  also  to  explain,  why  make  him  pope  of 
Rome,  instead  of  Antioch,  where  we  know  he  la- 
bored with  great  success  ;  or  instead  of  Jerusalem, 
where  the  Spirit  was  poured  out,  and  where  he 
preached  with  such  remarkable  power  ?  Is  it  not 
probable  that  tradition  has  again  misled  you  as  to 
the  location  of  the  chair  of  Saint  Peter." 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  59 

"  When  yoLi  have  provojl  and  explainei  these 
things,  then  I  wish  you  to  tell  by  what  body  of  men 
Peter  was  made  pope  at  Rome,  and  how  he  was 
elected  ;  for  his  successors  must  be  so  appointed 
and  elected.  I  wisli  you  to  state  how  Peter  was 
inaugurated  at  Rome,  and  what  were  the  limits  of 
his  authority  ;  for  so  his  successors  must  be  inau- 
gurated and  limited.  I  wish  you  to  prove  the  duties 
devolved  upon  Peter,  and  his  manner  of  discharging 
them  ;  for  such  are  the  duties  of  his  successors,  and 
such  must  be  their  manner  of  discharging  them.  I 
wish  you  to  prove  the  doctrines  and  morals  preached 
and  practised  by  Peter ;  as  his  successors  must 
preach  and  practice  the  same  doctrines  and  morals. 
Peter  had  a  wife  ;  have  your  popes  ?  Peter  called 
himself  an  elder;  do  your  popes?  Peter  exercised 
no  temporal  power  ;  is  it  so  as  to  your  popes  ?  Pe- 
ter devoted  himself  to  preaching  the  gospel ;  do  your 
popes  ?  Peter  was  a  man  of  no  parade,  though  im- 
pulsive, and  never  asked  any  mortal  to  kiss  his  foot 
or  his  toe  ;  is  it  so  with  your  popes  ?" 

Swelling  with  indignation  you  rise,  and  interrupt- 
ing the  judge,  you  exclaim,  "  Enough,  enough  ;  I 
see  that  your  honor  is  a  '  private  reasoner,'  inca- 
pable of  ^  making  an  act  of  faith,'  and  of  course 
no  better  than  a  heathen  or  a  publican.  You  are 
unfitted  to  sit  upon  such  questions  or  to  decide  upon 
them."  And  collecting  again  your  uapers  you  leave 
tlie  court,  muttering  in  an  under  tone  as  you  go,  that 
if  you  had  his  Honor  in  Italy  under  the  shadow  of, 


60  inRWAN's    REPLY 

the  sceptre  of  the  illustrious  Pius  IX,  you  would 
teach  him  what  was  the  true  evidence  a  judge  should 
require  upon  such  points. 

Thus,  sir,  in  the  form  of  a  judicial  investigation  I 
have  examined  the  testimony  which  your  church 
adduces  to  prove  that  Peter  was  clothed  by  Jesus 
-Christ  with  supremacy  over  the  apostles — that  he 
was  the  first  pope  of  Rome — and  that  the  popes  of 
Rome  are  his  legitimate  successors.  There  is  not 
a  particle  of  reliable  proof  as  to  either  of  these  posi- 
tions— whilst  the  evidence  is  overwhelming  that  they 
ar^the  merest  and  silliest  papal  assumptions.  And 
yet  upon  assumptions  based  upon  clouds  which  dis- 
appear before  the  light  of  investigation,  you  base  the 
very  existence  apd  perpetuity  of  the  church  of  God  ! 
It  seems  incredible  that  a  man  of  sense,  and  an 
Irishman  too,  should  suspend  my  salvation  upon  my 
church  connection  with  men  called  popes,  whose 
ignorance,  and  profligacy,  and  cruelty,  and  false- 
hood, have  stamped  their  name  with  infamy — and 
tell  me  that  my  submission  to  God  and  his  Son  is 
of  no  avail  unless  I  submit  to  these  men,  some  of 
whom  were  devils  in  canonicals. 

There  are  two  items  of  proof  in  favor  of  the  su- 
premacy of  Peter  adduced  by  your  church  tp  which 
I  have  not  alluded  ;  I  will  state  them  to  note  my 
omission  and  for  the  information  of  our  readers. 
The  first  is  the  passage  in  Luke  (5  :  3-10),  where 
Jesus  entered  into  the  ship  of  Peter,  in  preference 
to  that  of  James  and  John,  and  taught  the  people 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  61 

Obt  of  it.  In  the  view  of  Milner  it  is  a  strong  proof 
of  the  supremacy  of  Peter  ! !  The  other  is  the  story 
about  Simon  Magus,  the  magician.  By  his  juggling 
miracles  he  made  many  followers,  and  greatly  pre- 
judiced the  people  against  the  gospel.  He  pro- 
claimed that  at  Rome  he  was  going  to  fly  in  the  air ; 
and  Peter  was  there  to  oppose  him.  By  the  aid  of 
the  devil  he  absolutely  got  up  in  the  air  ;  but  Peter 
knelt  down  and  prayed  so  earnestly  that  the  devil 
fled  away  and  left  poor  Simon  to  shift  for  himself — 
he  fell  to  the  earth  and  broke  both  his  legs.  And 
the  impressions  of  the  apostle's  knees  upon  the  stones 
in  Rome  are  shown  to  this  day !  These  are  the 
most  unanswerable  arguments  upon  the  subject 
which  I  have  seen.  I  could  get  round  all  the  others, 
but  these  I  give  up  f 

"  The  pope's  supremacy,"  said  Tillotson,  "  is  not 
only  an  indefensible,  but  also  an  impudent  cause ; 
there  is  not  one  tolerable  argument  for  it,  and  there 
are  a  thousand  invincible  reasons  against  it." 

I  have  now,  sir,  sapped  two  of  your  main  princi- 
ples ;  the  supj'emacy  of  Peter  and  his  successors, 
and  that  the  Bible  must  be  understood  and  received 
as  your  church  inte  'prets  it.  The  taking  away  of 
these  two  principles  brings  your  whole  superstruc- 
ture tumbling  around  you.  Here  I  might  leave  you 
striving  to  escape  from  the  falling  masses ;  but  "  the 
sympathies  of  my  Irish  nature  "  compel  me  to  say, 
the  end  is  not  yet. 

Yours,  KiRWAN. 

6 


• 

62  kirwan's  reply 


LETTER  VII. 

Papal  claim  to  infallibility  examined,  aud  refuted. 

My  dear  Sir, — Although  the  infallibility  of  your 
church  is  involved  and  confuted  in  my  previous  let- 
ters ;  yet  as  you  place  so  much  stress  upon  it,  and 
make  it  one  of  your  fundamental  principles,  I  have 
supposed  it  worthy  of  a  separate  and  independent 
consideration.  I  will  subject  it  to  examination  in 
the  present  letter. 

In  letter  III,  chap.  25,  you  say,  "  The  Author  of 
revelation  identified  Himself  with  his  appointed  wit- 
ness, the  church,  in  such  a  manner  that  the  authori- 
ty of  the  one  is  essentially  implied  and  exercised  in 
the  authority  of  the  other."  That  is,  the  church 
has  the  same  authority  and  infallibiliiy  that  Christ 
had.     This  is  a  plain,  though  bold  assertion. 

In  letter  V,  chap.  54,  you  say,  "  Whether  the 
words  had  ever  been  put  on  record  or  not  (that  is, 
whether  the  Scriptures  had  ever  been  written  or 
not)  she  (the  church)  would  have  been  equally  in 
possession  of  that  prerogative,  namely,  the  vicarious 
authority  to  teach  unerringly  .  .  .  until  the  end 
of  the  world,  the  doctrines  of  Christ  ....  What 


:0    BISHOP    HUGHES.  63 

is  the  meaning  of  those  passages  if  it  be  not  to  in- 
vest the  official  teachers  of  the  Christian  religion 
with  the  necessary  portion  of  in-errancy,  in  other 
words,  of  infallibility,  by  its  Divine  author." 

But  there  is  no  need  of  calling  evidence  to  con- 
vict you  of  teaching  the  dogma,  the  infallibility  of 
the  papal  church.  It  is  one  which  j^our  church  has 
ever  boldly  and  strenuously  asserted,;  but  the  maxi- 
mum of  her  bold  and  confident  assertion  is  always 
in  connection  with  the  minimum  of  truth.  To  ex- 
pose the  utter  truthlessness  of  the  claim  a  few 
considerations  will  suffice. 

1.  How  do  you  prove  her  infallibility  ?  Tradition 
is  inadmissible  ;  because  that  has  been,  you  say,  in 
her  keeping.  It  is,  then,  either  a  bribed,  corrupted, 
or  partial  witness.  The  Scriptures,  on  your  ground, 
are  inadmissible,  because?  the  church  must  give 
them  meaning  ;  and  a  meaning  which  we  are  bound 
to  receive.  The  church,  you  say,  was  before  the 
Scriptures,  and  gives  them  credibility  and  meaning. 
Where  is,  then,  the  testimony  to  her  infallibility  ? 
It  is  simply  and  only  her  own  assertion  of  it. 

2.  But  where  is  the  seat  of  her  infallibility  ?  Is 
it  in  the  pope  ?  But  this  some  popes  deny,  as  Gala- 
sius.  Innocent,  Eugenius,  Adrian,  and  Paul ;  whilst 
it  is  asserted  by  others.  And  those  who  assert  it 
differ  as  to  its  extent.  Whilst  some  popes  deny  their 
infallibility,  the  Jesuits  say  that  "  the  pope  is  as 
unerring  as  the  Son  of  God."  Is  this,  sir,  less  than 
blasphemy,  when  you  consider  who  some  of  your 
popes  were  ? 


64  kirwan's  repl\ 

Is  it  in  a  general  council  ?  Such  is  t^ie  system 
of  the  French  school,  and  of  some  popes,  and  of 
some  councils,  as  of  Constance,  Pisa,  and  Basil, 
which  deposed  some  popes  for  high  crimes.  But 
in  this  the  council  of  Lateran  contradicts  tliat  of 
Basil. 

Is  it  in  a  general  council  headed  by  the  pope  ? 
This  some  positively  affirm.  But  this  is  opposed  by 
the  two  former  parties,  because  denying  the  princi- 
ple of each. 

Is  it  in  the  church  universal,  consisting  of  pastors 
and  people  ?  So  some  assert,  and  among  them, 
Panormitan  and  Mirandula.  "  Ecclesia  universalis 
non  potest  errare,"  says  Panormitan.  This  how- 
ever is  a  small  party  opposing  all,  and  opposed  by 
all  the  others. 

Now,  sir,  when  you  differ  about  the  seat  of  infal- 
libility so  widely  and  bitterly,  what  can  you  expect 
better  from  a  "  private  reasoner "  than  that  he 
should  ask  you  the  impertinent  questions.  If  your 
church  is  infallible,  why  does  she  not  determine 
where  her  infallibility  is  located  ?  What  is  her 
infallibility  worth,  if  she  never  knows  where  to 
find  it  ? 

3.  The  infallibility  of  your  church  is  too  limitea 
in  extent.  Because  she  has  no  tradition  upon  them, 
she  gives  no  interpretation  to  many  portions  of  the 
Scripture  ;•  and  she  forbids  me  interpreting  them  for 
myself!  What  are  these  portions  worth  ?  Might 
they  not  be  as  well  omitted  ?     She  has  no  tradition 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  65 

and  cannot  interpret  them,  and  I  must  not !  Here 
is  a  large  portion  of  the  Bible  shut  up  from  the 
world,  as  if  never  revealed  !  And  yet  Paul  tells  me 
that  "  all  Scripture  is  profitable."  Can  that  be  an 
infallible  church  that  knows  nothing,  and  will  per- 
mit  me  to  know  nothing,  about  a  large  portion  of 
God's  word  ? 

Her  infallibility  covers  only  the  field  of  doctrine 
and  morals,  and  extends  not  to  discipline  and  opi- 
nions.  Now  a  list  of  the  doctrines  and  morals  on 
which  she  infallibly  decides,  and  of  the  discipline 
and  opinions  on  which  she  makes  no  such  decision, 
and  a  narrative  of  her  conduct  in  reference  to  them, 
would  be  a  most  curious  paper.  Will  you  favor 
the  world  with  it,  if  you  can  ?  In  matters  of  doc- 
trine, in  which  your  church  is  infallible,  a  man  may 
believe  as  he  desires,  if  he  only  clings  to  holy  mo- 
ther ;  but  in  matters  of  discipline  and  opinion,  on 
which  she  has  made  no  decision,  if  he  acts  out  his 
honest  convictions,  he  will  have  emptied  on  him  the 
seven  vials  of  papal  wrath.  For  instance,  the  celi- 
bacy of  the  clergy,  communion  in  one  kind,  are 
matters  of  discipline,  and  yet  if  you.  Bishop  Hughes, 
like  Peter,  should  marry  a  wife — and  a  good  one 
would  be  a  great  comfort  to  you,  and  would  entitle 
you  more  fully  to  the  title  of  bishop — or  if  after  the 
example  of  Christ  you  should  administer  the  supper 
in  the  way  it  was  instituted,  you  would  soon  be  cast 
out  as  an  apostate.  Practically  her  infallible  doc- 
trines are  minor  matters,  whilst  those    embraced 

6* 


W)  KIRWAN'S    REPLY 

under  discipline  and  opinions  are  matters  on  which 
she  has  covered  the  earth  with  the  blood  and  bones 
of  murdered  men.  What  is  the  judge  worth  who 
is  unable  to  decide  on  all  questions  fairly  brought 
before  him  arising  under  the  laws  ? — and  what  is 
the  infallibility  of  your  church  worth  when  unable 
to  decide  on  the  simplest  questions  as  to  discipline 
and  opinions,  and  when  she  yet  sends  to  perdition 
all  those  who  deviate  from  her  practice  in  these 
things  ?  Paley  tells  us  of  a  fish  which,  when  pur- 
sued by  its  enemy,  casts  forth  a  liquid  that  muddles 
the  water  and  blinds  the  eyes  of  its  pursuer  ; — such 
is  the  object  of  your  distinction  between  doctrines 
and  discipline,  but  it  has  not  the  effect  of  screening 
your  absurd- dogma  from  being  hunted  down  as  an 
impertinent  and  wicked  assumption. 

4.  If  pope  contradicted  pope,  council,  council,  if 
your  church  has  taught  and  denied  in  one  age  what 
were  denied  and  taught  in  another,  as  has  been 
shown  a  thousand  times,  and  as  you  may  see  in 
Barrow,  Faber,  and  Edgar,  where  is  her  infallibi- 
lity ?  But  let  me  ask  your  attention  to  a  few  con- 
siderations bearing  on  the  reasonableness  of  the 
thing. 

Man  in  his  best  estate  is  fallible.  The  history  of 
your  own  church  teaches  this  beyond  any  other  un- 
inspired history  extant.  How  can  you  make  the 
fallible  infallible  ?  Can  a  whole  be  greater  than  its 
parts  ?  Does  the  coming  together  of  three  hundred 
fallible  men  make  them  infallible  ? 


TO    I  jSHOP    HUGHES.  67 

If  any  of  the  bcdies  for  which  infallibility  is 
claimed  by  your  church  were  infallible,  how  ac- 
count for  their  awful  wickedness  and  grievous 
errors  ?  If  it  inheres  in  the  pope,  were  John,  Bene- 
dict, and  Alexander  infallible ;  men  born,  as  it 
would  seem,  to  show  how  far  human  nature  may 
sink  in  degeneracy  ?  Were  the  popes  raised  to  the 
chair  of  Peter  by  the  courtezans  Marozia  and  Theo- 
dora, infallible  ?  Genebrand  says  that  for  one  hun- 
dred -and  fifty  years  they  were  apostatical  rather 
than  Apostolical,  and  yet  were  they  infallible  ? 
What  say  you.  Bishop  Hughes  ?     Yes,  or  no. 

But  perhaps  infallibility  was  in  the  councils. 
What  does  the  noble  Saint  Gregory  say  of  these  ? 
He  compares  their  dissension  and  wrangling  to  the 
quarrels  of  geese  and  cranes  gabbling  and  contend- 
ing in  confusion — and  represents  them  as  demoraliz- 
ing instead  of  reforming.  That  of  Byzantine,  Nazi- 
anzen  describes  as  a  cabal  of  wretches  fit  for  the 
house  of  correction.  Cardinal  Hugo  thus  addressed 
the  council  of  Lyons  on  the  withdrawal  of  the  pope  ; 
"  Friends,"  said  he,  "  we  have  effected  a  work  of 
great  utilit}  and  charity  in  this  city.  When  we 
came  to  Lyons  we  found  only  three  or  four  brothels 
in  it ;  we  leave  at  our  departure  only  one  ;  but  that 
extends  from  the  eastern  to  the  western  gate  of  the 
city."  For  other  details  as  to  the  councils,  I  reMr 
you  to  Edgar,  where  papal  authorities  for  these 
statements  are  fully  cited.  And  yet  were  these 
councils,  canonically  convened,  infallible  ?     Does 


6$  kirwan's  reply 

consecration  by  your  church  render  a  ruffian  in- 
fallible ?  "  The  Holy  Spirit,"  said  Cardinal  Man. 
drucio  at  Trent,  "  will  not  dwell  in  men  who  are 
vessels  of  impurity,  and  from  such,  therefore,  no 
right  judgment  can  be  expected  on  questions  of 
faith." 

Can  there  be  doctrinal  without  moral  infallibility  ? 
Is  not  moral  apostasy  as  culpable  as  doctrinal? 
Can  there  be  infallibility  without  inspiration,  without 
the  special  interposition  of  heaven  in  each  case  ? 
Can  it  be  transferred  from  pope  to  pope,  from  coun- 
cil to  council  ?  That  your  people  may  not  err,  does 
not  your  doctrine  require  infallible  bishops  to  explain 
the  decrees  of  popes  or  councils — and  infallible 
priests  to  explain  them  to  the  people,  and  the  people 
to  be  infallible  so  as  not  to  misinterpret  the  priest  1 
Where'does  the  thing  find  an  end  ?  It  is  vain  that 
councils  send  forth  their  decrees  unless  there  is 
some  infallible  way  of  reaching  their  infallible 
meaning  ;  and  if  their  meaning  is  left  to  be  devel- 
oped by  the  "  private  reasoner,"  what  better  are 
you  off  than  if  you  permitted  him  to  read  and  to  de-. 
velop  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  for  himself? 
Do  you  not  know  that  Soto,  a  Dominican,  and  Vega, 
a  Franciscan,  gave  contradictory  interpretations  to 
the  decisions  of  the  Council  of  Trent  on  Original 
i^in,  the  last  council  "  that  blessed  the  world  by  its 
orthodoxy,  or  cursed  it  by  its  nonsense  ?"  Can  it 
be  possible  that  your  claim  for  infallibility  can  have 
any  thing  to  sustain  it  save  "  old  wives'  fables  ?" 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  69 

The  assertion  of  it  would  seem  to  argue  either  idiocy 
or  insanity  ;  or  a  pious  knavery  which  would  seek 
to  entrap  men  by  logical  meshes  woven  out  of  as- 
sertion,  falsehood,  and  imposture. 

Nor,  sir,  have  we  yet  reached  the  bottom  of  the 
absurdity.  Your  infallible  church  has  set  itself  in 
opposition  to  the  inspired  word  of  God,  and  to  cor- 
rect its  plainest  principles.  As  I  have  illustrated 
this  idea  in  some  of  my  former  letters,  I  can  only 
now  allude  to  it.  The  Bible  makes  God  the  only 
object  of  worship  ;  you  set  men  to  worship  the  Vir- 
gin, the  host,  the  cross,  relics,  pictures,  and  images. 
The  Bible  teaches  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  in- 
tercessor between  God  and  man ;  you  make  as 
many  intercessors  as  there  are  angels,  apostles,  mar- 
tyrs, and  saints,  and  send  sinners  to  Mary  more  fre^ 
quently  than  to  her  Son.  The  Bible  teaches  that 
nothing  is  sinful  but  a  want  of  conformity  to  the  law 
of  God  ;  you  make  the  violation  of  your  ceremonial 
laws  sinful,  and  damnable,  whilst  the  violation  of 
the  laws  of  God  is  a  venial  offence.  The  Bible 
teaches  that  to  serve  God  aright  we  must  be  regen- 
erated by  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  you  pronounce  this  a 
false  and  accursed  doctrine,  and  teach  that  we  are 
regenerated  by  baptism,  and  kept  in  a  state  of  sal- 
vation by  other  sacraments  and  ceremonies  which 
you  have  instituted.  But  I  will  not  proceed  in  the- 
sickening  detail  which  proves,  beyond  doubt,  that 
your  infallible  church  has  devised  and  is  now  seek- 
ing  to  propagate  the  merest  caricature  of  Christian- 


72  kirwan's  reply 

rant  the  private  reasoners  of  any  age,  whether  past 
or  present,  to  believe  that  they  can  be  saved,  so  long 
as  they  trust  to  their  own  individual  opinions  for  the 
attainment  of  the  .truth,  and  the  means  of  spiritual 
life  and  participation  in  Christ."  And  all  who  now 
reject  the  authority  of  your  church  which  now  exer- 
cises the  precise  authority  which  Christ  did  whilst 
upon  earth,  you  denounce  as  "  private  reasoners," 
incapable  of  faith,  and  as  "  necessarily  out  of  the 
way  whiph  leads  to  eternal  life."  This,  sir,  is  not 
speaking  in  Latin,  as  you  do  when  you  mumble 
masses ;  your  English  is  more  than  usually  plain 
here ;  and  so  will  mine  be,  in  examining  the  prac- 
tical bearing  of  this  cool  assumption  of  your  churck 
to  think  for  every  body  ;  of  this  cool  exclusion  from 
eternal  life  of  all  who  will  not  permit  you  to  think 
for  them,  and  who  dare  to  think  for  themselves. 

The  first  idea  suggested  by  all  your  dribble  on  the 
subject  through  half  a  dozen  of  letters  is,  that  you 
seem  to  regret  that  God  has  endowed  any  body,  save 
bishops  and  the  inferior  clergy,  with  the  faculty  of 
reason.  The  exercise  of  it  on  the  subject  of  reli- 
gion is  denounced  by  you  in  every  form  as  leading 
to  schism,  heresy,  and  helL  Now,  sir,  if  the  exer- 
cise of  my  reason  is  abstractedly  so  dangerous ;  if, 
in  fact,  when  exercised,  it  leads  to  such  awful  re- 
sults, how  can  you  account  for  it  that  the  Lord  has 
endowed  me  with  reason  at  all  ?  On  your  princi- 
ples would  it  not  be  better  that  I  should  have  been 
born  with  a  razor  in  my  hand  to  cut  my  throat,  than 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  73 

with  reason  in  my  mind  vvhicli  compels  me  to  think 
on  the  subject  of  religion  ?  Would  it  not  be  better 
Sot  all  your  purposes  that  I  should  have  no  reason  ? 
And  do  you  not  daily  find  the  simple  facts  that  God 
has  endowed  man  with  reason,  and  with  an  awful 
bias  to  exercise  it,  greatly  embarrassing  to  you? 
Do  not  these  facts  give  rise  to  nearly  all  the  difficul- 
ties with  which  you  have  to  contend  in  the  discharge 
of  your  apostolical  duties  ?  If  men  never  turned 
"  private  reasoners,"  yours  would  be  an  easy  and  a 
most  lucrative  task  ! 

With  your  theory  fully  carried  out,  and  all  "  pri- 
vate reasoning  "  fully  suppressed,  and  all  "  private 
reasoners  "  killed  off,  after  the  manner  of  the  exter- 
mination of  the  Huguenots  in  France,  by  the  author- 
ity of  your  church,  earth  would  present  to  your  re- 
joicing eyes  an  Arcadian  scene  such  as  the  sun  has 
not  yet  illumined.  The  people  would  be  all  sheep 
— yes,  literal  sheep — the  pope  would  be  the  chief 
shepherd — you,  John  Hughes,  and  your  other  Right 
Reverend  brethren  would  be  his  watch-dogs.  If 
one  of  the  poor  sheep  should  ever  think  of  straying 
from  your  stagnant  waters  after  a  clear  rivulet  flow- 
ing cool  from  under  the  rock  at  which  to  quench  his 
thirst,  if  a  bark  would  not  terrify  him  back  to  his 
place,  he  would  be  soon  torn  to  pieces  as  a  warning 
to  all  the  flock  not  to  imitate  his  example.  And 
then  the  chief  shepherd  and  his  dogs  would  have  all 
the  flock  to  themselves,  from  the  wool  to  the  fat,  and 
from  horn  to  hoof.     And  nothing  prevents  your  geW 

7 


72  kirwan's  reply 

rant  the  private  reasoners  of  any  age,  whether  past 
or  prfesent,  to  believe  that  they  can  be  saved,  so  long 
as  they  trust  to  their  own  individual  opinions  for  the 
attainment  of  the  .truth,  and  the  means  of  spiritual 
life  and  participation  in  Christ."  And  all  who  now 
reject  the  authority  of  your  church  which  now  exer- 
cises the  precise  authority  which  Christ  did  whilst 
upon  earth,  you  denounce  as  "  private  reasoners," 
incapable  of  faith,  and  as  "  necessarily  out  of  the 
way  whiph  leads  to  eternal  life."  This,  sir.  is  not 
speaking  in  Latin,  as  you  do  when  you  mumble 
masses ;  your  English  is  more  than  usually  plain 
here ;  and  so  will  mine  be,  in  examining  the  prac- 
tical bearing  of  this  cool  assumption  of  your  churck 
to  think  for  every  body ;  of  this  cool  exclusion  from 
eternal  life  of  all  who  will  not  permit  you  to  think 
for  them,  and  who  dare  to  think  for  themselves. 

The  first  idea  suggested  by  all  your  dribble  on  the 
subject  through  half  a  dozen  of  letters  is,  that  you 
seem  to  regret  that  God  has  endowed  any  body,  save 
bishops  and  the  inferior  clergy,  with  the  faculty  of 
reason.  The  exercise  of  it  on  the  subject  of  reli- 
gion is  denounced  by  you  in  every  form  as  leading 
to  schism,  heresy,  and  helL  Now,  sir,  if  the  exer- 
cise of  my  reason  is  abstractedly  so  dangerous ;  if, 
in  fact,  when  exercised,  it  leads  to  such  awful  re- 
sults, how  can  you  account  for  it  that  the  Lord  has 
endowed  me  with  reason  at  all  ?  On  your  princi- 
ples would  it  not  be  better  that  I  should  have  been 
bom  with  a  razor  in  my  hand  to  cut  my  throat,  than 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  73 

with  reas.on  in  my  mind  which  compels  me  to  think 
on  the  subject  of  religion  ?  Would  it  not  be  better 
for  all  ymir  purposes  that  I  should  have  no  reason  ? 
And  do  you  not  daily  find  the  simple  facts  that  God 
has  endowed  man  with  reason,  and  with  an  awful 
bias  to  exercise  it,  greatly  embarrassing  to  you  ? 
Do  not  these  facts  give  rise  to  nearly  all  the  difficul- 
ties with  which  you  have  to  contend  in  the  discharge 
of  your  apostolical  duties  ?  If  men  never  turned 
"  private  reasoners,"  yours  would  be  an  easy  and  a 
nwst  lucrative  task  ! 

With  your  theory  fully  carried  out,  and  all  "  pri- 
vate reasoning  "  fully  suppressed,  and  all  "  private 
reasoners  "  killed  olT,  after  the  manner  of  the  exter- 
mination of  the  Huguenots  in  France,  by  the  author- 
ity of  your  church,  earth  would  present  to  your  re- 
joicing eyes  an  Arcadian  scene  such  as  the  sun  has 
not  yet  illumined.  The  people  would  be  all  sheep 
— yes,  literal  sheep — the  pope  would  be  the  chief 
shepherd — you,  John  Hughes,  and  your  other  Right 
Reverend  brethren  would  be  his  watch-dogs.  If 
one  of  the  poor  sheep  should  ever  think  of  straying 
from  your  stagnant  waters  after  a  clear  rivulet  flow- 
ing cool  from  under  the  rock  at  which  to  quench  his 
thirst,  if  a  bark  would  not  terrify  him  back  to  his 
place,  he  would  be  soon  torn  to  pieces  as  a  warning 
to  all  the  flock  not  to  imitate  his  example.  And 
then  the  chief  shepherd  and  his  dogs  would  have  all 
the  flock  to  themselves,  from  the  wool  to  the  fat,  and 
from  horn  to  hoof.     And  nothing  prevents  your  geU ' 

7 


74 

ting  out  from  such  a  purgatory  of  clashing  opinions 
as  that  in  which  you  are  now  placed,  and  rising  up 
to  such  a  paradise  as  I  have  here  sketched,  but  that 
wicked  and  depraved  disposition  of  men  to  question 
your  authority,  and  to  use  their  "  private  reason." 
Considering  that  this  abominable  abomination  "  pri- 
vate reason  "  thus  excludes  you  from  the  paradise 
you  desire,  and  shuts  you  up  in  a  purgatory  from 
which  neither  the  efficacy  of  masses,  nor  "  all  the 
alms  nor  suffrages  of  the  faithful  "  can  deliver  you, 
you  have  by  no  means  sufficiently  denounced  it. 
There  is  no  hope  for  you  until  it  is  put  down !  But 
I  would  advise  you  to  strike  at  the  fountain  or  cause 
of  the  evil,  which  is  God,  who  endowed  man  with 
reason  and  knowledge — who  has  given  him  such  a 
depraved  disposition  to  use  them,  and  who  has  com- 
manded him  to  give  "  to  every  man  a  reason  for  the 
hope  that  is  in  him  " — and  who  thus  invites  all  men, 
**  Come  now,  let  us  reason  together,  saith  the  Lord." 
Go  up,  like  a  man,  to  the  cause  of  the  evil  which 
you  deplore,  and  you  are  at  once  in  conflict  with 
your  Creator. 

The  next  idea  suggested  by  what  you  say  about 
"  private  reason  "  is  the  utter  inutility  of  the  Bible. 
There  are  but  two  principles  "  authority  and  rea- 
son "  by  which  we  can  know  its  meaning.  Au- 
thority is  in  the  hands  of  your  church  to  be  exercised 
as  she  wills :  to  read  the  Bible  and  reason  about  it 
leads  to  hell.  Where,  then,  is  the  need  of  the  Bible 
At  all,  save  a  few  copies  for  the  Bishops  and  inferior 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  75 

clergy  which  they  may  occasionally  consult  for  the 
purpose  of  finding  out  chapter  and  verse  of  such 
texts  as  these  :  "  Thou  art  Peter,"  "  Confess  your 
sins  one  to  another."  Sir,  on  your  principles  there 
is  no  need  of  it ;  and,  hence,  in  purely  Catholic 
countries  you  dispense  with  it.  Do  you  remember 
how  many  Bibles  Borrow  could  find  in  Spain  ? 
How  many,  think  you,  could  be  purchased  in  the 
bookstores  of  Rome  ?  How  many,  think  you,  could 
be  found  among  the  peasantry  of  Munster  and  Con- 
naught,  who  yet  wear  the  yoke  of  your  church  1 
If  all  collected,  I  think  they  would  not  add  mate- 
rially to  the  weight  of  the  bag  in  which  you  pack 
your  vestments  when  going  forth  on  some  of  your 
episcopal  visitations.  You  talk  about  the  Protestant 
translation  as  false — and  as  defective.  But  that  is 
all  in  the  air.  The  cause  of  your  opposition  to  the 
Bible  is  bound  up  with  your  principle — "  authority." 
What  men  read  they  will  use  their  private  reason 
about.  And  if  the  hidden  man  of  your  heart  were 
known,  it  would  be  seen  that  you  hate  the  circula- 
tion of  the  Bible  as  much  as  you  hate  Kirwan's 
Letters,  as  the  one  is  tlie  cause  of  the  other.  Sir, 
there  is  no  possibility  of  sustaining  "  authority " 
versus  "  private  reason,"  with  a  Bible  circulated  in 
whole  or  in  part.  So  awfully  fearful  are  you  upon 
this  point  that  many  of  your  inferior  clergy  never 
see  a  copy  of  the  Bible,  lest  they  should  become 
^'private  reasoners."  Not  long  since  I  received  a 
visit  from  a  priest  who  acted  as  curate  in  Ireland^ 


76  kibwan's  reply 

and  who  told  me  that  all  of  the  Bible  he  ever  saw, 
whilst  in  your  church,  were  the  small  portions  scat- 
tered, like  angel's  visits,  through  the  Mass  Book. 
Sir,  your  doctrine  of  "  authority  "  supersedes  the 
Bible  ;  and  its  circulation  leads  to  mortal  sin  be- 
cause it  m^kes  men  "  private  reasoners."  What 
a  pity  the  Bible  was  ever  written  !  Would  not  this 
world  of  ours  be  a  clover  field  for  your  priests,  if 
the  Bible,  like  your  traditions,  had  only  been  left 
unwritten  and  unprinted  ?  No  wonder  that  the 
thunders  of  the  Vatican  are  hurled  at  our  Bible 
Societies,  which  are  so  awfully  multiplying  "  pri- 
vate reasoners."  But  mere  thunder,  though  noisy, 
is  harmless. 

There  is  yet  another  idea  connected  with  what 
you  say  about  "  authority  "  and  "  reason,"  which 
in  this  country  at  least  must  strike  one  as  singular. 
I  have  no  doubt  it  will  so  strike  yourself.  When 
two  clever  men  get  into  difficulty,  they  consent  to 
have  it  fairly  adjudicated,  and  to  abide  the  decision 
of  an  impartial  tribunal.  If  one  declines  such  a 
reference,  and  insists  on  having  it  his  own  way,  the 
fair  inference  would  be  that  he  was  conscious  of  be- 
ing in  the  wrong.  Between  the  intelligent  men  of 
our  race  and  your  church  there  is  a  difficulty. 
Your  church  asserts  the  right  of  thinking  for  them, 
and  damns  them  unless  they  permit  her  to  do  so ; 
they  deny  that  right.  How  is  the  question  to  be 
settled  ?  They  are  an  interested  party,  because 
their  civil  and  spiritual  freedom  are  involved ;  and 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  7T 

•SO  is  your  church,  because  if  decided  against  her, 
she  is  ever  afterwards  deprived  of  "  the  alms  and 
.suffrages  of  the  faithful."  If  your  claim  is  true, 
they  are  slaves ;  if  false,  they  are  free,  and  your 
craft  is  ended.  How  is  this  matter  to  be  decided  ? 
Your  church  replies,  "  With  me  is  the  authority  to 
bind  or  to  loose  ;  it  must  be  referred  to  me  as  the 
only  competent  authority."  But  they  say,  "No; 
you  are  an  interested  party — you  have  millions  at 
stake — your  character  and  standing  before  heaven 
and  earth  are  at  stake — your  decision  must  be  par- 
tial. But  we  will  abide  the  decision  of  any  tribunal 
save  that  which  you  set  up."  But  your  church 
says,  "  No,  you  must  abide  by  my  decision  or  he 
damned.^'  Sir,  were  men  in  conflict  but  for  a  dol- 
lar, this  would  wear  knavery  on  the  face  of  it ;  ceua 
it  wear  less  when  the  points  at  issue  are,  whether 
your  priests  shall  be  despots,  and  the  human  race 
their  pliant  serfs  ? 

There  is  yet  another  principle  connected  with 
your  doctrine  of"  authority  "  and  "  private  reason." 
The  man  that  believes  all  you  tell  him  "  makes  an 
act  of  faith  ;"  but  the  poor  "  private  reasoner  "  that 
goes  to  the  Bible  for  himself  can  form  only  an 
"  opinion  "  upon  any  subject.  To  illustrate.  When 
you  tell  a  poor  papist  who  believes  you,  that  Christ 
Jesus  is  co-equal  with  the  Father,  his  belief  of  what 
you  say  is  "  an  act  of  faith  ;"  when  I  learn  the  same 
truth  from  the  Bible  and  believe  it,  with  me  it  is  only 
an  "  opinion  !"     He  believes  on  "  authority  "  and  I 


78  kirwan's  reply 

am  a  "private  reasoner."  His  "  act  of  faith  "  saves 
him  ;  my  "  opinion  "  damns  me  ;  when  his  belief 
and  mine  are  the  same,  with  only  this  difference,  he 
gets  his  "  faith  "  from  5-ou  ;  I,  my  "  opinion  "  from 
the  Bible !  Sir,  this  is  something  more  than  drivel- 
ing nonsense.     It  is  contemptible  blasphemy. 

But  let  us  try  this  scheme  in  its  application  to 
some  texts  and  truths,  that  we  may  see  how  it  works. 

"  Bishop  Hughes,"  says  John  Murphy,  "  what  is 
the  meaning  of  that  text  (James  5 :  16),  "  Confess 
your  faults  one  to  another,  and  pray ybr  one  another.'^ 
"  Why,  John,"  you  reply,  "  it  means  confess  your 
sins  to  the  priest,  and  ask  the  priest  to  pray  for  you." 
John  believes,  and  makes  an  act  of  faith.  I,  a  little 
more  cautious,  look  at  the  text,  and  thus  reason 
about  it.  "  One  to  another  " — that  looks  very  much 
like  the  priest  confessing  to  me,  if  I  confess  to  the 
priest,  and  I  praying  for  the  priest,  if  the  priest 
prays  for  me.  I  look  a  little  farther  after  "  one  an- 
other" or  "  one  to  another."  I  find  in  Heb.  3  :  13, 
the  following  words,  "  exhort  one  another."  Does 
this  mean  that  the  priest  must  exhort  me,  but  not  I 
the  priest  ?  Very  well.  I  find  the  following  words 
in  Eph.  4 :  32,  "  Be  kind  one  to  another,  tender- 
hearted, forgiving  one  another."  Does  this  mean 
that  the  priest  must  be  kind  and  tender-hearted  tO' 
me,  and  not  I  to  the  priest  ?  that  he  must  forgive 
me,  but  not  I  him  ?  What  say  you,  Bishop  Hughes  ? 
Yet  John  Murphy  believes  you  and  makes  an  act 
of  faith,  and  goes  to  confession  and  pays  you  and 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  79 

goes  to  heaven  ;  I,  a  "  private  reasoner  "  conclude 
you  pervert  the  Scriptures  to  make  a  gain  of  godli- 
ness, confess  my  sins  to  God,  and  for  my  opinion  go 
to  hell ! 

John  Murphy  again  asks,  *'  Bishop,  what  is  the 
meaning  of  Mat.  26 :  26,  27  V  You  reply,  "  Why, 
John,  it  means,  that  Christ  transubstantiated  the  bread 
and  the  wine  into  his  own  body  and  blood,  and  that 
then  he  multiplied  himself  into  twelve,  and  that  then 
he  gave  himself  to  be  eaten  to  each  of  the  apostles, 
and  after  he  was  thus  eaten,  he  was  not  eaten  ;  he 
was  yet  alive  and  spoke  to  them."  With  his  eyes 
wonderfully  dilated,  he  asks,  "  Bishop,  is  this  done 
now  ?"  "  O  yes,  John,"  you  reply,  "  daily  in  the 
mass."  He  again  asks,  "  Bishop,  why  not  give  the 
bread  and  the  wine  now  to  the  people  ?"  "  The 
reason,  John,  is,"  you  reply,  "  that  as  the  wafer  is 
changed  into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Chri&l,, 
there  is  no  need  of  it,  for  if  we  eat  the  whole  body, 
we  of  course  eat  the  blood  with  it."  John  is  satis- 
fied, makes  an  act  of  faith,  and  is  saved  ;  I,  looking 
a  little  farther  into  the  Scriptures,  soon  conclude  that 
the  passage  means,  that  the  broken  bread  repre- 
sented his  body  broken,  and  the  wine  in  the  cup  his 
blood  poured  out.  John  Murphy  for  his  act  of  faith 
is  saved  ;  and  I,  poor  Kirwan,  for  my  opinion  am 
damned ! ! 

Such,  sir,  is  the  way  your  rule  works  as  to  texts. 
Let  us  now  see  how  it  works  as  to  some  important 
truths. 


80  kirwan's  reply 

John  Murphy  again  approaches  you  and  asks, 
"Bishop,  how  can  I  be  saved?"  "  Why,  John," 
you  reply,  "  the  church  makes  that  very  plain  ; 
you  must  be  baptized,  and  go  to  mass,  and  perform 
penance — you  must  go  regularly  to  confession  ; 
when  dying  you  must  receive  extreme  unction ; 
then  you  must  go  to  purgatory,  from  which  you  are 
to  be  delivered  by  the  efficacy  of  masses,  and  by  the 
alms  and  the  suffrages  of  the  faithful ;  and  then  you 
go  to  heaven,"  Amazed  at  the  process,  poor  John 
makes  an  act  of  faith  and  is  saved  :  I  turn  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  preferring  the  word  of  God  to  yours, 
believe  that  "  he  that  believeth  in  the  Lord  Jesxih 
Christ  shall  be  saved."  John  Murphy  believes  you. 
and  is  saved  ;  I  believe  God  and  am  damned.  And 
so  on  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  Why,  Bishop 
Hughes,  all  this  has  not  even  the  redeeming  quality 
of  being  good  nonsense  ;  an  article  in  whose  pro- 
duction our  countrymen  are  not  usually  deficient, 
even  when  their  power  as  private  reasoners  is  at 
low  water  mark. 

Here,  sir,  I  will  close  my  review  of  your  reasons 
for  adherence  to  the  Roman  Catholic  church  as 
given  in  your  ten  letters  to  Dear  Reader.  Never 
were  reasons  more  baseless,  or  weaker,  presented 
to  the  human  mind  to  justify  either  opinions  or  con- 
duct. The  way  in  which  you  state  them  obviously 
shows  that  you  never  examined  them — that  you  re- 
ceived them  as  true  as  a  good  son  of  the  church, 
without  ever  asking  why  or  wherefore  in  reference 


i 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  8t 

to  them.  Your  reception  of  them  was  obviously  an 
act  of  faith,  and  not  an  opinion  formed  in  the  usual 
process  of  a  private  reasoner.  And  to  ask  me,  or 
any  sensible,  thinking  man,  to  believe  in  the  Catho- 
lic church  for  the  reasons  presented  in  your  letters, 
is  on  a  par  with  asking  me  to  believe  that  the  little 
wafer  made  of  flour,  which  you  lay  upon  the  tongue 
of  a  papist  bowing  before  your  altar,  is  transub- 
stantiated by  a  miserably  mumbled  ceremony  into 
the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 

Balaam's  ass  would  never  have  had  a  name  or  a 
place  on  the  page  of  history  were  it  not  for  the  whip- 
ping which  his  master  gave  him  ;  and  were  it  not 
for  that  whipping  never  would  hairs  from  his  tail 
have  been  preserved  amid  the  sacred  relics  of  Rome. 
Similar,  T  fear,  will  be  the  effect  of  this  review  in 
bringing  up  to  public  notice  letters,  which  have  nei- 
ther sense,  truth,  wit,  logic,  or  even  "  clever  scur- 
rility "  to  recommend  them,  and  which  if  let  alone 
might  have  reached  the  very  depths  of  oblivion  by 
the  massive  weight  of  their  dullness. 

But,  sir,  although  through  with  your  ten  letters^ 
the  end  is  not  yet. 

Yours, 

KiRWAN. 


82  kirwan's  reply 


LETTER  IX. 

The  Bishop's  six  letters  to  Kirwan,  reviewed. 

My  dear  Sir, — I  wish  in  the  present  epistle  to 
notice,  in  the  briefest  way,  those  last  and  curious 
productions  of  your  pen,  your  six  letters  to  Kirwan. 
If  your  papal  assumptions  and  papal  logic  made 
your  ten  letters  to  "  Dear  Reader  "  intolerably  dull, 
you  have  cast  into  these  so  much  low  personality, 
so  much  Episcopal  impertinence,  and  such  a  strong 
spice  of  Irish  ill  humor,  as  to  make  them  quite  in- 
teresting. They  are  certainly  readable  produc- 
tions, and  give  us  new  revelations  both  as  to  your 
fine  taste,  and  wonderful  good  nature.  You  cannot 
expect  that  I  will  permit  you  to  raise  new  issues 
between  you  and  myself,  so  as  to  divert  the  public 
mind  from  the  points  to  which  I  have  solicited  its 
and  your  attention  ; — nor  can  j^ou  expect  that  I 
could,  for  a  moment,  descend  to  the  low  level  along 
which  in  those  letters  you  have  seen  fit  to  move. 
Yet  I  would  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  a 
few  remarks  in  reference  to  them.  And  this  I  will 
do,  after  the  manner  of  some  old  preachers,  under 
a  few  heads. 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  83 

1.  Your  letters  give  us  an  amusing  view  of  the 
manner  in  which  you  keep  your  promises.  In 
your  first  series  you  say,  "  I  propose  to  publish  a 
series  of  letters  on  the  same  great  topics  which 
Kirwan  has  discussed."  These  letters  drew  "their 
slow  length  along,"  until  they  reached  No.  10,  and 
the  "  great  topics  whiqh  Kirwan  has  discussed  " 
were  left  untouched.  Feeling  that  you  could  not 
write  such  letters  upon  fish  and  eggs,  you  dropped 
them  at  the  commencement  of  Lent ;  they  have 
never  since  been  resumed.  In  your  second  series, 
you  say,  "  Your  letters  purport  to  explain  the 
reasons  why  you  left  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ; 
.  .  .  the  object  of  mine  will  be  to  review  those 
reasons."  And  yet  in  your  six  letters  there  is  not 
the  most  remote  allusion  to  "  those  reasons !"  Is 
this  owing,  sir,  to  a  want  of  memory,  or  to  the 
want  of  ability  ?  Or  is  it  a  sample  of  the  way  in 
which  you  generally  meet  your  promises  ?  The 
facts  certainly  show  that  you  are  a  most  promising 
man. 

2.  Your  letters  give  us  an  interesting  view  of 
your  moral  courage.  When  you  commenced  your 
first  series  we  Protestants  certainly  felt,  and  said, 
"  Now  we  are  going  to  have  a  tract  for  the  times, 
and  worthy  of  the  controversy."  But  the  little 
spice  of  the  first  letter  was  not  found  in  any  other 
of  the  series,  and  they  became  utterly  insipid,  and 
died  at  the  sight  of  Lent !  When  the  second  series 
commenced,  we  all  said,  and  the  papers,  political 


84  kirwan's  reply 

and  religious,  said,  "  Now  we  are  going  to  have  a 
racy  and  manly  discussion."  Six  letters  are  pub- 
lished without  touching  a  single  topic  in  contro- 
versy, and  again  you  retire  !  And  almost  before 
your  quill  was  dry,  you  were  off  for  Halifax  ! 
And  when  we  now  inquire  after  your  Right  Rev- 
erence, the  only  reply  we  :ceceive  is,  "  He  is  gone 
to  Halifax  !"  If  you  compare  my  desertion  of  the 
Catholic  church  when  a  boy  to  the  desertion  of  our 
flag  by  some  of  our  soldiers  in  Mexico,  to  what  can 
we  liken  your  desertion  of  her  in  her  present  exi- 
gencies ?  For  a  mere  stripling  recruit  to  run  away 
in  a  time  of  peace,  is  a  small  matter ;  but  for  the 
General  in  Command  to  flee  to  Halifax  in  the  very 
midst  of  the  battle,  is  a  very  diff'erent  aflfair!  I 
hope  you  can  satisfy  "  the  illustrious  Pope  Pius  IX" 
as  to  all  this  ! 

3.  Your  letters  furnish  a  very  nice  illustration 
pf  an  easy  way  of  getting  out  of  a  difficulty.  You 
expected  to  make  short  work  of  Kirwan's  Letters 
when  you  commenced  answering  without  reading 
them.  But  as  you  read  on,  you  found  the  nuts 
were  a  little  harder  to  crack  than  you  had  antici- 
pated ;  and  you  made  the  commencement  of  Lent 
an  excuse  for  dropping  them.  But  this  displeased 
your  priests  and  people,  and,  as  the  Freeman's 
Journal  testifies,  you  were  called  upon  to  give  to 
the  letters  of  Kirwan  a  direct  answer.  This  Pa- 
pists and  Protestants  alike  desired,  and  demanded. 
As  there  was  no  way  of  evasion,  in  an  evil  hour 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  85 

you  consented  to  complr  with  the  demand  ;  and, 
hemie,  those  six  unfortunate  letters  which  have  so 
widely  excited  a  smile  at  your  expense.  In  these 
it  is  obvious  that  you  have  read  Kirwan.  Your 
temper  and  your  quotations  are  proof  of  this. 
Again  you  find  the  nuts  too  hard  to  crack ;  and 
seeing  that  instead  of  crushing  them  you  were  cover- 
ing your  own  fingers  with  blood  and  bruises,  you 
cry  out  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  letter,  "  You  wish 
me  to  dispute  with  you  on  matters  of  general  con- 
troversy ;  I  must  beg  leave  to  decline  the  proposed 
honor ;  I  cannot  consent  to  dispute  with  any  man 
for  whom  I  feel  no  respect."  And  after  bowing 
me  ^'  for  the  present,  farewell,"  you  are  off  for 
Halifax !  That  is,  after  laboring  through  three 
months  of  the  last  winter,  and  sweltering  through 
six  weeks  of  the  present  summer,  to  confute  me,  ir« 
vain,  you  find  out  that  you  have  no  respect  for  me, 
decline  further  controversy,  and  flee  to  Halifax  ! 
So  that  when  a  man  is  fairly  worsted,  he  has  only 
to  find  out  that  he  has  no  respect  for  his  antagonist, 
and  then  he  can  retire  crowned  with  laurels  from 
the  controversy !  How  easily,  according  to  this 
rule,  could  the  dastardly  Santa  Anna  have  gained 
a  complete  victory  over  the  gallant  Scott ;  and  even 
after  the  Yankees  were  reveling  in  the  Halls  of  the 
Montezumas  !  He  had  only  to  find  out  that  he  had 
no  respect  for  him  ! ! 

Now,  sir,  I  shrev/dly  conjecture  that  this  way  of 
getting  out  of  a  diflficulty  is  borrowed  from  "  old 

8 


86  kirwan's  refly 

Ireland."     Did   you   ever  goto  school  in  Ireland  ; 
or  were  those  awful  laws,  of  which  you  speak  in 
your  last  letter,  in  force,,  until  after  your  emigration  ? 
Perhaps  if  you  did  you  may  remember  that  Irish 
boys   are  very  fond  of  fighting   after   school.     A 
very  odd  scene,  which  was  acted  one  evening,  is 
now  before  my  mind,  as  if  it  transpired  but  yes- 
terday.     There  was  a  large  clumsy  fellow,  that  by 
his  boasting  and  violent  gesticulations  kept  all  the 
boys  for  some  weeks  in  dread  of  him  ;  and  there  was 
a  thin  but  muscular  boy,  who  at  length  resolved  to 
meet  him  in  a  fair  boxing-match.     Those  of  us  in  the 
secret  retired  to  a  secluded  spot  and  formed  a  ring ; 
and  the  fight  commenced.     It  was  soon  apparent, 
to  the  joy  of  us  all,  that  the  tliin  muscular  boy  was 
an  overmatch  for  his  opponent.     In  every  round  he 
had  signally  the  advantage.     After  nearly  as  many 
rounds  as  you  have   written  letters  to  and  about 
Kirwan,   the  large  clumsy   fellow,   with   his   eyes 
swelled  up,  and  his  nose  and  mouth  streaming  blood, 
and  scarcely  able  to  stand  up,  thus  addressed  the  boy 
that  almost  pounded  him  to  jelly,  "  You  are  a  mean, 
dirty  blackguard  for  whom  I  have  no  respect,  and  I 
will  fight  no  more  with  you.''     Feeling  this  an  ad- 
ditional insult,  his  antagonist  bared  his  arms  for  an- 
other round,  but  the  beaten  boy  fled  blubbering  from 
the  ring  :  but  whither  he  fled  I  have  no  means  of 
knowing.     Perhaps  your  Reverence  may  find  him 
in  Halifax.     So  you  see  your  way  of  getting  out  of 
a  difficulty;  although  ingenious,  is  not  new.     And 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  87 

both  you  and  the  public   know  it  is  not  the  true 
reason. 

4.  Your  letters  reveal  what  may  be  regarded  as 
a  compound  estimate  of  those  which  I  have  address- 
ed to  you.  In  your  first  series  you  speak  of  them 
as  "  possessing  a  sprightliness  of  style  which  ren- 
ders them  a  pleasing  contrast  to  the  filthy  volumes 
that  have  been  written  on  the  same  side  ;" — and  not 
long  afterwards  you  speak  of  them  as  containing  only 
"clever  scurrility."  In  your  six  letters,  you  say 
of  mine,  that  "  so  far  as  regards  the  grammatical 
construction  of  phrases,  and  a  correct  and  almost 
elegant  use  of  Anglo-Saxon  words,  they  are  not  un- 
worthy of  the  country  which  produced  a  Dean  Swift, 
or  a  Golds»iith."  This,  from  a  competent  critic 
would  be  high  praise  ;  and  even  from  you,  it  shows 
that  your  miserably  exclusive  and  debasing  reli- 
gious system  has  not  suppressed  all  the  generous 
pulsations  of  your  Irish  heart.  But  then  you  speak 
of  them  afterwards  as  written  in  the  "  true  wind- 
bag style."  Now,  sir,  how  to  reconcile  these  things, 
I  know  not,  save  on  the  ground  that  the  "  wind- 
bag "  is  yours,  and  that  Kirwan's  Letters  have 
pricked  it,  until  it  has  fallen  into  a  state  of  collapse 
beyond  the  power  of  a  new  inflation. 

5.  They  reveal  a  great  dishonesty  in  evading  the 
point  of  a  statement.  The  Editor  of  the  Observer 
has  already  exposed  your  miserable  and  truthless 
perversion  of  the  scene  at  the  Confessional,  and,  as 
you  well  know,  drawn  by  me  to  the  life.     The  ex- 


88  kirwan's  reply 

posure  of  that  single  perversion  is  enough  to  brand 
you  for  life  as  an  unfair  man.  1  say  no  more  about 
it.  So  you  evade  the  point  of  the  statement  as  to 
the  priest  reading  a  dead  list  from  the  altar  for  so 
much  a  head  per  year  to  pray  them  out  of  purgatory. 
Do  you  deny  that  such  a  list  is  read,  and  that  uiiless 
the  priest  is  paid  he  drops  the  names  ?  That  is  the 
point  of  the  statement.  The  fact  you  deny  is,  a  fact 
not  questioned  by  me,  that  any  priest  ever  decides 
when  any  soul  leaves  purgatory  !  1  have  no  doubt 
they  will  keep  souls  there  as  long  as  they  can  get 
money  to  say  mass  for  them,  if  it  were  until  St. 
Tibb's  eve,  which  is  the  eve  after  the  final  consum- 
mation. 

So  you  evade  the  point  of  the  facts  as  to  the 
drunken  priests.  You  say,  and  truly,  that  such 
facts  form  no  argument  against  religion,  or  any  form 
of  it ;  and  that  you  have  seen  Protestant  ministers 
in  state  prison  for  worse  sins  than  drunkenness. 
But  the  point  of  the  statement  is,  that  these  drunken 
worthless  wretches,  whether  deposed  or  recti  in  ec- 
clesia,  were  miracle  workers,  and  were  daily  resorted 
to  for  miraculous  cures  both  as  to  men  and  cattle, 
and  for  which  they  were  paid  in  money  and  Irish 
whisky  !  That,  sir,  is  the  point.  Have  you  ever 
seen  a  Protestant  minister  deposed  for  drunkenness, 
or  in  a  state  prison  for  a  criminal  olfence,  resorted 
to  by  Protestants  for  miraculous  cures,  and  paid  for 
them  in  money  or  whisky  ?  If  not,  where  is  the 
point  of  your  parallel  ?     And  so  as  to  ''  St.  Joim's 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  89 

Well."  You  say  that  you  "  know  nofhing  about  it,''^ 
and  yet  you  pronounce  the  story  a  fabrication  !  If 
you  know  nothing  about  it,  what  right  have  you  to 
say  it  is  untrue,  when  millions  of  living  witnesses 
might  be  collected  in  Ireland  to  the  truth  of  the 
statement — when  the  well  is  there  to  testify  for  it- 
self! Sir,  is  the  story  about  St.  Patrick's  Well  in 
the  County  Down  a  fabrication,  whose  orgies  are  a 
disgrace  to  the  civilized  world  1  Are  the  Seven 
Stations  at  or  near  Athlone  a  fabrication,  where 
feats  of  superstition  are  yearly  performed,  which 
cast  into  the  shade  those  of  the  Hindoo  fakiers  ?  It 
is  no  wonder  you  are  ashamed  and  vexed  when 
the  deep  degradation  to  which  popery  has  reduced 
our  unhappy  country,  is  exposed  to  the  indignant 
scorn  of  free  and  intelligent  American  citizens ; — it 
is  no  wonder  when  you  seek,  in  any  way,  to  escape 
from  the  obloquy  to  which  the  upholding  of  such  a 
system  subjects  you. 

6.  Your  letters  exhibit  a  great  dislike  for  the 
reductio  ad  absurdum.  And  no  wonder,  when  your 
systen".  ..'".  rs  so  many  and  such  strong  temptations 
to  use  it.  And  yet,  you  know,  that  it  is  a  legiti- 
mate way  of  reasoning.  I  hope  you  cannot  say  of 
this,  as  of  St.  John's  Well,  that  you  know  nothing 
iO.iout  it.  I  am  striving  to  show  the  absurdity  of 
literal  interpretation  as  you  use  it  to  prove  certain 
papal  tenets  ;  and  I  ask  how,  by  your  rule,  you 
escape  the  inference  of  being  a  devil  whilst  uphold- 
ing the  doctrine  of  clerical  celibacy  which  Paul 

8* 


90  kirwan's  reply 

pronounces  a  doctrine  of  devils  ?  My  object  is  to 
show  the  absurdity  of  your  rule,  and  yet  you  seem 
as  vexed  about  it  as  if  the  budding  horns  had 
already  appeared  upon  your  temples !  So  as  to 
the  text,  "  he  that  eateth  this  bread  shall  never 
hunger."  The  object  is  to  show  the  unspeakable 
absurdity  of  your  rule.  If  that  rule  is  true,  then 
all  that  you  have  to  do  is  to  give  your  w^afer  to  the 
poor  famishing  Irish,  and  they  hunger  no  more. 
This  you  pronounce  "  a  horrible  pun  on  the  words 
of  the  Saviour  ;"  you  mistake, — it  is  a  horrible 
blow  at  your  rididulous  interpretation  of  "  this  is 
my  body."  And  because  the  blow  is  so  heavy,  it 
is  immediately  big  with  "impiety  and  inhumanity." 
Now,  sir,  the  way  for  you  to  get  rid  of  all  that  kind 
of  argument  is,  to  withdraw  the  premises  on  which 
it  is  built ;  or  when  you  see  that  your  premises 
lead  to  such  absurd  consequences,  to  reject  them. 
It  will  do  you  no  good  to  get  vexed  about  it. 

7.  Your  letters  also  exhibit  wonderfully  cogent 
proofs  of  my  infidelity.  True,  all  we  Protestants 
are  pronounced  infidels  by  you  because  we  are  un- 
able "  to  make  an  act  of  faith  ;"  but  the  proofs  of 
my  infidelity  are  extra,  and  are  furnished  by  my 
letters.  The  first  is,  I  appeal  to  "  common  sense  " 
very  often.  The  second  is,  I  eat  meat  on  Friday, 
and  think  it  neither  injures  the  bodies  nor  the  souls 
of  men.  The  third  is,  I  believe  that  intelligent 
worship  is  only  acceptable  to  God  nor  beneficial  to 
me.     The  fourth  is,  I  do  not  believe  that  you  can 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  91 

make  God  out  of  a  flour  wafer.  The  fifth  is,  I 
do  not  believe  that  Mary  was  the  mother  of  God. 
The  sixth  is,  I  do  not  sufficiently  reverence  Mary, 
only  speaking  of  her  as  "  a  good  woman."  The 
seventh  is,  1  do  net  highly  enough  value  the  lubri- 
cation of  an  old  sinner,  when  dying,  with  olive  oil. 
The  eighth  is,  I  believe  it  is  as  acceptable  an  act 
to  God  to  worship  the  head  of  Balaam's  ass,  as  a 
human  skull  said  to  be  that  of  the  Apostle  Paul. 
And  all  these  specifications  are  melted  down  and 
moulded  into  one  great  and  grand  charge,  "  my  in- 
sult to  the  mysteries  of  the  Catholic  faith."  Well, 
sir,  if  these  are  proofs  of  my  infidelity,  I  plead 
guilty.  But  let  me  inform  you  that  I  draw  a  dis- 
tinction between  Bible  and  papal  mysteries ; — the 
first  I  receive  as  inscrutable  and  adorable ;  the 
second  I  reject  as  the  mysteries  of  iniquity.  Per- 
haps my  letters  are  too  much  pervaded  by  what 
you  are  pleased  to  call  "  a  silvery  thread  of  wit 
which  is  unmistakably  Irish,"  but  I  have  long  ago 
concluded  that  the  scaly  hide  of  the  Beast  was  im- 
pervious to  reason  and  argumentation,  and  that  the 
time  has  come  for  Wit  and  Ridicule  and  Carica- 
ture to  empty  upon  the  monster  their  quiver  of 
arrows.  There  are  some  things  too  absurd  to  waste 
reason  upon  ;  there  is  a  point  beyond  which  to 
reason  is  casting  pearls  before  swine,  and  where 
we  must  answer  fools  according  to  their  folly.  I 
do  not  wonder  that  a  mind  so  seemingly  supersti- 
tious as  is  yours,  should  pronounce  me  occasionally 


92  kirv/an's  reply 

profane  ;  but  perhaps  you  may  remember  the  story 
of  Diodorus  about  the  Roman  who  inadvertently 
killed  a  cat  in  Egypt,  one  of  the  gods  of  the  land. 
So  exasperated  were  the  populace  that  they  ran  in 
frenzy  to  his  house,  and  neither  the  files  of  soldiers 
drawn  up  for  his  protection,  nor  the  terror  of  the 
Roman  name  could  save  him  from  being  torn  to 
pieces.  In  times  of  famine  the  Egyptians  would 
kill  and  eat  one  another  before  they  would  kill  an 
ox,  a  dog,  an  ibis,  or  a  cat !  These  were  their 
gods,  and  to  treat  them  otherwise  than  with  the 
most  profound  reverence  was  unpardonable  pro- 
fanity ! ! 

1  accept,  sir,  most  cheerfully,  the  offer  which  you 
make  to  prove  one  of  my  statements,  which  you 
question,  a  fabrication,  by  a  formal  investigation,  on 
one  condition,  which  I  hope  you  will  have  the  sense 
and  courage  to  grant.  The  condition  is  this.  You 
say  that  you  do  transubstantiate  a  little  wafer  into 
the  real  and  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  that 
you  do  this  whenever  and  wherever  you  say  mass. 
Now  "  I  am  willing  to  go  to  any  reasonable  expense 
to  prove  this  a  fabrication,  if  either  you  or  any  other 
bishop  or  priest  have  the  courage  to  meet  me  in  a 
formal  investigation."  This  will  incur  but  little 
expense — it  can  be  done  at  St.  Patrick's,  or  at  St. 
Peter's,  or  at  your  own  house.  You  can  select 
three  out  of  the  five  judges.  We  will  first  take  the 
wafer  and  examine  it.  You  may  then  say  high  and 
low  mass  over  it,  and  take  it  through  all  the  re'^nired 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  93 

lliftings  and  lowerings  needful  to  transubstantiate  it, 
and  if  it  is  not  the  identical  wafer  it  was  when  we 
put  it  into  your  hands  then  we  will  submit  to  be 
branded  as  blasplieniers  ;  but  if  it  is,  we  will  let 
you  ofTj  without  any  brand,  simply  as  an  impostor. 
The  offer  which  you  make  would  lead  to  a  sea  voy- 
age, and  would  require  the  raising  of  the  dead,  and 
would  load  to  some  expense ;  but  this  can  be  done 
in  a  day,  and  I  will  agree  to  pay  the  bill. 

If  you  reject  this  form  of  the  condition,  I  will 
make  another.  Your  olive  oil,  blessed  on  Maunday 
Thursday,  you  represent  as  possessing  wonderful 
efficacy,  when  rubbed  on  a  dying  sinner  according^ 
to  law.  "  I  am  willing  to  go  to  any  reasonable  ex- 
pense to  prove  this  a  fabrication;"  and  that  your 
olive  oil,  under  these  circumstances,  has  not  a  whit 
greater  efficacy  than  whale  oil,  or  bear's  oil,  or 
goose  grease.  And  again,  I  will  leave  to  you  the 
selection  of  three  out  of  five  judges.  When  these 
offers  arc  accepted,  and  these  questions  are  settled, 
then  we  v/ill  make  the  required  arrangements  to 
meet  the  challenge  which  you  throw  out  to  myself 
or  Mr.  Prime.  May  I  hope  to  hear  from  you  as 
soon  as  it  will  meet  your  convenience  after  your  re- 
turn from  Halifax  ? 

In  case  you  should  resume  this  controversy,  for 
the  third  time,  permit  me,  as  your  friend,  to  give 
you  a  few  words  of  advice. 

1.  Keep  your  temper.  A  bishop  should  be  no 
brawler.     Good   nature   is  the    very  air  of  a  good 


94  KIRWAN  S    REPLY 

mind,  the  sign  of  a  large  and  generous  soul,  and  the 
soil  in  which  virtue  prospers. 

2.  Remember  that  rude  assaults  upon  an  oppo- 
nent do  not  refute  his  arguments.  You  grievously 
complain  of  them  in  your  own  case  ;  can  they  be 
right  as  to  me  ?  If  I  were  all  you  say  of  me,  and 
as  much  beyond  that  as  that  is  beyond  the  truth, 
that  would  not  prove  true  the  absurdities  of  Roman- 
ism— that  would  not  prove  that  you  can  create  God, 
and  forgive  sin, — or  that  your  religion  is  any  thing 
else  but  a  peacock  religion,  which  has  nothing  use- 
ful or  attractive  about  it  save  its  glittering  plumage. 

3.  Remember  that  what  you  write  may  possibly 
live  after  you  are  dead  ;  and  that  your  office  as  a 
bishop  gives  not  the  weight  of  a  feather  to  your  weak 
arguments,  whilst  it  renders  your  vulgarity  doubty 
vulgar.  In  this  country  no  man  is  sustained  by  his 
station  ;  unless  he  graces  it,  he  disgraces  himself. 
The  person  who  raises  himself  to  station,  name,  and 
influence,  is  worthy  of  double  honor  ;  but  in  case 
such  a  person  should  rise  from  a  cabbage  garden  to 
a  mitre,  he  ought  to  know  that  the  line  of  conduct 
which  would  not  particularly  dishonor  the  hoe  or 
the  spade,  would  reflect  no  enduring  reputation  upon 
the  crook  and  the  crosier. 

Adherence  to  this  advice,  if  it  corrects  not  your 
principles,  will  have,  at  least,  a  benign  influence  on 
your  manners.  Farewell.  May  you  be  brought  to 
ihe  knowledge  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  .Jesus. 

Yours, 

KiRWAN. 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  95 


LETTER  X. 

AN  APPEAL  TO  ALL  ROMAN  CATHOLICS. 

My  DEAR  Friends, — In  closing  these  letters,  as 
with  the  two  series  hitherto  published,  I  turn  from 
Bishop  Hughes  to  you.  Many  of  you  have  not  been, 
uninterested  readers  of  my  letters  ;  nor  of  the  con- 
troversy, so  far  as  it  has  assumed  that  character, 
between  Bishop  Hughes  and  myself.  And  whilst 
the  prejudices  of  education,  and  your  respect  for 
official  station,  would  naturally  lead  you  to  take 
sides  with  him,  I  am  thankful  to  know  that  the  gen- 
erous impulses  of  many  of  you,  and  your  desire  to 
know  the  truth,  have  led  you  to  resolve  that  I  should 
have  fair  play.  I  have  appeared  before  you  with 
no  crosses  before  my  name — with  no  ecclesiastical 
titles  after  it — making  no  flourish  of  trumpets  from 
the  places  of  brief  authority,  and  with  the  one  sim- 
ple desire  to  unfold  before  your  eyes  the  religious 
system  v/hich  has  oppressed  your  fathers,  and  which 
in  its  ceremonial  exactions  has  become  too  heavy  for 
the  earth  any  longer  to  bear.  And  I  am  thankful 
that  so  many,  educated  as  you  and  I  were  in  our 
youth,  have  been  led  by  these  letters  to  seek  the  re- 


99  KIRWAN  S    REPLY 

ligion  of  Christ  and  of  the  Bible  among  Protestants. 
And  whilst  there  are  many  of  you  whose  minds, 
through  priestly  interferences,  have  been  so  imbued 
with  prejudices  as  to  repel  all  approach  to  you,  how- 
•  ever  kind,  with  the  lamp  of  life  and  light,  yet  this  is 
by  no  means  the  case  with  you  all.  To  this  latter 
class,  the  intelligent  and  candid  of  your  number,  who, 
in  this  free  land,  are  determined  to  think  for  your- 
selves, I  now  appeal. 

The  history  of  my  "  Letters  to  Bishop  Hughes  " 
is  a  very  short  one.  Whilst  yet  in  my  minority, 
and  nearly  thirty  years  ago,  I  left  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church.  Motives  that  I  now  need  not  detail, 
led  me  to  write  those  letters  in  which  I  have  stated 
the  reasons  which  induced  me  to  give  up  the  reli- 
gion of  the  priest  for  that  of  the  Bible.  To  these 
letters  Bishop  Hughes  attempted  an  indirect  reply 
in  ten  letters  ;  and  broke  down  in  the  midst  of  the 
discussion  at  the  commencement  of  last  Lent.  As 
these  had  nothing  in  them  to  answer  my  objections, 
or  to  satisfy  your  inquiries,  you  asked  for  something 
else.  Hence  the  six  letters  entitled  "  Kirwan  Un- 
masked," in  which,  after  abuse  without  stint  or 
sense,  and  without  answering  one  solitary  objection, 
he  again  breaks  down  at  the  close  of  the  sixth,  and 
flees  to  Halifax.  And  this,  my  third  series,  which 
I  now  bring  to  a  close,  is  designed*  as  a  reply  to  those 
addressed  by  him  to  "  Dear  Reader,"  and  to  me, 
Kirwan. 

The  history  of  the  Bishop  in  the  concern  is  about 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  97 

■as  short.  When  my  letters  first  appeared,  he  could 
not  condescend  to  answer  them  !  He  then  com- 
menced answering,  without  reading  them !  and 
without  meeting  an  objection  stated  by  me,  he  broke 
down  with  the  tenth  letter.  When  goaded  by  Cath- 
olics and  Protestants,  until  he  could  stand  it  no 
longer,  he  resolved  on  a  direct  answer  to  my  objec- 
tions ;  and  again  he  broke  down  at  the  close  of  the 
sixth  letter,  without  answering  one  of  them. 
Thinking  that  it  would  answer  all  his  purposes  with 
you  to  abuse  me,  he  writes  his  six  wonderful  letters, 
which  deserve  a  place  in  the  museum  as  a  speci- 
men of  the  controversial  taste  and  ability  of  popish 
priests,  and  again  breaks  down,  and  flees  beyond 
seas  to  hide  the  shame  of  his  wickedness  f  How 
high  his  calculations  on  the  strength  of  your  preju- 
dices, and  on  the  weakness  of  your  common  sense  ! 
Having  usurped  the  power  of  thinking  for  you,  he 
takes  for  granted  that  any  kind  of  episcopal  non- 
sense will  satisfy  you  !  But  he  is  mistaken  ;  as 
multitudes  of  you  declare  that  his  silence  would  be 
far  better  than  what  he  has  said,  and  would  have 
inflicted  less  injury  on  Popery  in  this  country. 

Such  being  the  history  of  the  letters,  look  for  a 
moment  at  the  state  of  the  controversy.  There,  iif 
my  first  and  second  series,  lie  my  objections  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  abused  from  Maine  to 
Mexico,  but  unanswered.  And  I  defy  Bishop 
Hughes,  and  all  his  m.llred  brethren  on  this  continent, 
(Q  answf^r  them  on  Scriptural  and  common  sense  priih 

9 


yo  KIRWAN  S    REPLY 

ciples,  to  the  satisfaction  of  any  reasonable  man, 
The  bishop  has  published  ten  letters  giving  his  rea- 
sons for  adherence  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
out  of  whose  pale  there  is  no  salvation.  These  rea- 
sons I  have  shown  to  be  mere  and  miserable  as- 
sumptions, and  utterly  insufficient  to  justify  the 
faith  or  the  practice  of  any  living  man.  Bishop 
Hughes  would  not  ask  your  note  for  a  dollar,  had 
he  no  stronger  reasons  for  asking  it  than  those  which 
he  has  given  to  bind  you  to  the  Catholic  Church ; 
and  if  he  should  so  impose  upon  you  as  to  secure 
your  note  for  no  stronger  reasons,  you  might  sue 
him  for  taking  from  you  your  money  under  false 
pretences,  and  send  him,  if  not  to  purgatory,  at  least 
to  state  prison,  to  atone  for  his  crime. 

Such,  then,  is  the  state  of  this  controversy. 
There  lie  my  objections  to  popery  unanswered. 
Let  Bishop  Hughes  answer  them,  if  he  can.  There 
are  his  reasons  for  adherence  to  the  Catholic  Church 
confuted.  Let  him  reconstruct  his  argument  if  he 
can.  And  all  that  he  has  yet  done  is,  to  abuse  me 
in  a  way  unbecoming  a  bishop,  for  first  riddling  his 
building,  and  then  taking  away  its  foundations. 
And  because  the  hopes  of  his  gain  are  gone,  he  and 
his  priests,  were  it  in  their  power,  would  serve  me 
as  Paul  and  Silas  were  served  in  Philippi  by  the 
masters  of  the  damsel  out  of  whom  they  cast  the 
spirit  of  divination.     But  we  are  in  a  free  country. 

Roman  Catholics,  from  this  man  and  his  miser- 
able systerh;  I   now  turn  to  Tou.     Read  the   ten 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  99 

letters  which  I  have  reviewed,  and  see  how  weak 
are  the  arguments  for  popery !  ,Read  the  six  letters 
addressed  to  me,  and  see  how  low  your  bishop 
can  descend  !  If  John  Hughes  is  the  Achilles  of 
popery  in  our  country,  what  must  the  soldiers  under 
him  be  ! !  And  will  you  longer  sustain  a  religion 
the  strong  objections  to  which  he  cannot  meet ;  and 
the  reasons  for  adherence  to  which,  as  given  by 
himself,  are  not  strong  enough  to  hold  up  the 
spider's  most  attenuated  web  ?  Behold  him  twice 
coming  to  the  rescue  of  your  church,  and  twice 
turning  his  back  without  even  an  effort  to  spike  a 
single  gun  aimed  at  its  vitals  !  Can  the  system 
which  he  cannot  defend  be  worthy  of  your  support  ? 
Can  the  captain  who  deserts  his  post  in  the  heat  of 
battle,  be  worthy  of  the  commission  he  bears  ? 

Read  his  ten  letters,  if  their  dullness  will  permit 
you,  and  examine  their  principles.  What  an  argu- 
ment for  a  religious  despotism  of  the  most  grinding 
and  enduring  character  !  The  pope  is  the  succes- 
sor of  Peter,  and  you  have  no  hope  of  heaven  but 
in  connection  with  the  pope  !  Be  as  good,  as  pious, 
as  charitable,  as  Godlike  as  you  may,  you  are  out 
of  the  way  of  life  unless  you  submit  to  the  pope, 
and  then  to  all  his  subalterns  !  You  have  no  right 
to  form  an  opinion  of  your  own  ;  the  pope,  bishops, 
and  priests  are  appointed  to  think  for  you  !  With- 
out a  license,  such  as  they  give  in  Ireland  for  sell- 
ing whisky,  you  have  no  right  to  read  the  Bible  ; 
the  priests  will  do  that  for  you,  and   tell  you  what 


100  kirwan's  reply 

is  in  it  that  concerns  you  !  To  God  your  Father 
you  have  no  right  to  go  save  through  a  priestly  in- 
tercessor, who,  for  a  fee  to  suit  your  circumstances, 
will  transact  all  your  business  at  the  Court  of 
Heaven  !  All  you  do  3'^ou  must  tell  the  priest ; 
and  thus  you  give  him  a  power  over  you  by  which 
he  can  whip  you  into  the  traces  whenever  you  dare 
to  think  for  yourselves  !  If  the  letters  of  Bishop 
Hughes  are  true,  then  the  priests  of  the  papal 
church  are  a  close  corporation  with  the  pope  at 
their  head,  with  the  keys  of  life  and  death  in  their 
hands,  and  through  whom  alone  God  exercises 
spiritual  dominion  in  our  world  !  What  a  fearful 
despotism  is  this,  infinitely  more  oppressive  than 
any  civil  despotism  which  has  ever  cursed  the 
world  !  It  meets  you  at  your  entrance  into  life — 
it  dogs  you  through  every  step  of  your  earthly  pil- 
grimage— it  stands  by  you  at  the  bed  of  death, 
claiming  the  power  of  opening  heaven  to  your  soul 
when  it  escapes  from  its  clay  tabernacle,  or  of 
locking  it  up  in  hell !  From  the  cradle  to  the 
grave  you  must  only  do  as  it  ordains  at  the  risk  of 
all  the  vials  of  its  wrath  !  And  this  is  popery  ; — 
yes,  popery  as  advocated  and  practised  in  the  city 
of  New-York  by  Bishop  Hughes !  With  what 
noble  consistency  can  he  raise  his  voice  in  Vaux- 
hall  against  the  oppression  of  Ireland  by  England, 
and  subscribe  his  money  to  buy  a  shield  for  the 
back  of  the  sham -patriots,  who,  by  their  shameful 
blustering  and  cowardly  conduct,  have  made  Irish 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  101 

patriotism  a  subject  of  merriment  throughout  the 
world ; — and    then    vindicate    a   code   of  religious 
despotism  in  comparison  with  which  that  of  Russia 
is  freedom ; — and  then  filch  from  the  pockets  of  the 
poor,   ignorant,    credulous,  but    noble-hearted    and 
generous  Irish,  the  money  they  have  earned  with 
the   sweat   of  their   brow,    to   purchase    for   them 
chains,  and    to   pay  priests  for   riveting   them  on 
their  limbs  !     Roman  Catholics,  will  you  submit  to 
a  despotism  which  thus  degrades,  dupes,  and  robs 
you  ?     Irish  Roman  Catholics,  so  eager  to  burst  the 
chains  with  which  England  has  bound  the  land  of 
our  fathers,  will  you  submit  to  wear  a  yoke  like 
this  ?     Sons  of  noble  sires,  whose  blood  and  bones 
fatten  and  whiten  every  field  in  Ireland  by  strug- 
gles to  break  the  British  yoke,  will  you,  in  a  land 
of  light  and  freedom,  like   Russian  serfs,  wear  a 
yoke  like  this  ?     Will  you  permit  a  close  priestly 
corporation,  without  any  sufficient  motive  save  to 
increase  their  corporate  property,   to  assume  over 
you  the  power  of  God — and  to  bind  to  their  girdle 
the   keys  of  heaven — to  enter  your  family  £ind  to 
regulate  your  meat  and  your  drink — if  a  servant  in 
a  Protestant  family,  to  place  you  there  as   a  spy, 
and  to  forbid  you  enjoying  its  religious  privileges — 
to  think  for  you— on  every  hand  to  surround  you 
with  infinitely  ramified  and  potent  influences,  which 
are  sleepless  in  their  efl^orts  to  keep  around  your 
neck  the  yoke  of  servitude,   and   to  prevent  your 
emancipation   into  that  liberty   with   which  Christ 

9* 


102  kiewan's  reply 

makes  his  people  free  ?  Thousands  in  this  land, 
and  tens  of  thousands  through  all  the  earth,  are 
casting  it  aside  as  too  heavy  longer  to  be  borne ; 
will  not  all  of  you  do  the  same  ?  Will  you  be  con- 
tent to  be  slaves  in  a  country  of  freedom, — slaves 
to  papal  priests,  the  most  degrading  of  all  slavery — 
when  it  is  only  for  you  firmly  to  resolve  and  you 
are  at  once  spiritually  as  you  are  civilly  free  ? 
Fling  the  flag  of  your  spiritual  freedom  to  the  free 
winds  of  heaven,  and  let  your  watchwords  be  God, 
the  Bible,  Liberty,  and  unborn  generations  will 
rise  and  call  you  blessed. 

Irish  Roman  Catholics,  I  am  not  so  destitute  of 
all  sympathies  with  you,  and  with  our  fatherland 
beyond  the  waves  of  the  Atlantic,  as  Bishop  Hughes 
Avould  make  you  believe.  I  sympathize  with  you 
here  in  that  degradation  to  which  the  religion  of  the 
priest  has  reduced  you.  I  deeply  sympathize  with 
our  lovely  country  at  home  and  our  noble  country- 
men, so  deeply  degraded,  and  mainly  by  the  same 
cause.  I  renewedly  charge  upon  popery  the  low 
social  level  to  which  Ireland  has  been  reduced,  and 
the  social  degradation  of  her  children  in  all  the 
lands  of  their  dispersion.  It  is  popery  that  has 
made  her  sons  and  daughters,  in  so  many  instances, 
hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water.  And  my 
sympathies  with  you  and  for  you,  more  than  aM 
other  causes,  have  given  existence  to  these  letters. 
As  I  early  predicted,  the  bishop  rings  changes  on 
my  apostacy — charges  me  with  desertion — leaves 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  103 

the  argument  for  the  man — and  in  every  way,  save 
by  reason  and  argument,  seeks  to  vilify  my  name, 
so  as  to  diminish  my  influence  with  you.  In  this 
he  is  joined  by  his  priests.  But  this  is  simply  the 
conspiracy  of  the  wolves,  ravening  the  fold  to  induce 
the  sheep  to  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  the  voice  of  the  shep- 
herd who  sounds  the  alarm.  Their  craft  is  in  dan- 
ger, and  hence  their  wrath.  I  here  assert  before 
heaven  and  earth,  that  you  are  grievously  imposed 
upon  by  your  priests — that  for  the  sake  of  your 
money  they  daily  practice  upon  you  impositions  such 
as  should  brand  them  as  impostors — that  they  trafl[ic 
in  souls,  and  make  a  gain  of  godliness,  and  that  instead 
of  your  veneration  they  are  worthy  only  of  your  re- 
jection. And  for  the  evidence  of  all  this  I  need  only 
point  you  to  the  moneys  which  they  draw  from  you 
by  their  senseless  masses,  by  their  extreme  unctions, 
by  their  charms,  and  relics,  and  penances,  and  pur- 
gatorial deliverances,  and  by  the  thousand  and  one 
ways  in  which  they  show  their  sympathy  for  the 
^eep  by  fleecing  them  of  their  wool.  And  hence 
the  hue  and  cry  against  me  by  your  priests,  because 
I  plainly  and  fearlessly  tell  you  of  these  things. 

Nor  am  I,  Roman  Catholics,  the  profane  infidel 
which  your  bishop  would  make  me  out  to  be.  If 
there  were  no  alternative  for  me  but  to  believe  what 
he  teaches,  I  would  be  again  compelled  to  shoot  the 
gulf  of  infidelity,  and  to  build  my  hopes  for  the  fu- 
ture upon  the  dim  twilight  instructions  of  natural 
religion.     What  would  I  not  believe  sooner  than 


U4: 


KIRWAN  S    REPLY 


that  man  can  create  God  !  But  even  were  I  an  in- 
fidel, vulgar  as  Painc;  bitter  as  Voltaire,  plausible  as 
Gibbon,  would  that  be  any  reason  why  my  objec- 
tions to  popery  should  not  be  answered  ?  Did  not 
Porteus  answer  Paine  ?  Did  not  Campbell  confute 
Hume  ?  And  even  if  an  infidel,  why  should  not 
Bishop  Hughes  answer  my  objections  ?  The  rea- 
son is  not  in  my  infidelity,  but  in  his  inability.  He 
is  unable  to  answer  them.  But  I  am  not  an  in- 
fidel. I  believe  in  the  Bible.  I  believe  in  the  reli- 
gion of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  the  source  of  my  comforts 
here,  and  the  foundation  of  all  my  hopes  fbr  the 
future.  I  believe  in  the  divinity,  the  vicarious  atone- 
ment of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  in  the  efficacy  of  that 
atonement  to  save  all,  without  money  and  without 
price,  who  rest  solely  upon  it.  "  He  that  believeth 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  if  there  was  not  a  pope 
or  priest  upon  earth,  "  shall  be  saved."  This  is 
my  faith  ]  and  it  is  to  this  simple,  efficacious  faith — 
the  faith  of  the  prophets,  apostles,  martyrs,  fathers, 
confessors  of  all  ages  and  of  all  countries — of  tke 
true  Catholic  church  in  all  its  ministers  and  mem- 
bers, that,  in  my  soul,  I  desire  to  win  you. 

Truth,  and  not  mitres,  crosses,  unmeaning  cere- 
monies, priestly  vestments,  solemn  farces,  is  the 
only  thing  worthy  of  your  love  and  reverence.  Buy 
the  truth  and  sell  it  not.  Dig  for  it  as  for  hid  trea- 
sures. This  is  the  pearl  of  great  price  ;  and,  if 
necessary,  sell  all  that  you  possess  to  purchase  it. 
Popery  is  the  religion  of  children,  oi  low  civiliza- 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  105 

tion — Christianity  is  the  religion  of  men,  and  of 
high  civilization,  where  the  virtues  and  graces  most 
flourish.  Dare  to  be  Christians.  Your  attachment 
to  popery  only  benefits  the  priest ;  Christianity  will 
enrich  yourselves.  Dare  to  be  Christians.  The 
night  is  far  spent ;  the  day  is  at  hand.  O  be  chil- 
dren of  the  day.  Fear  God,  and  then  the  wrath  of 
the  priest  inspires  no  more  terror  than  do  the  gentle 
whisperings  of  the  evening  zephyr. 

Praying  with  all  prayer  for  your  deliverance 
from  the  degrading  and  grinding  despotism  of  popery, 
and  for  your  full  emancipation  into  the  glorious 
liberty  of  the  gospel,  I  am,  with  all  the  sympathies 
of  my  Irish  nature, 

Yours, 

KiRWAN, 


r 


\ 


i 


J 


A 


F 


w'i.l 


i 


